RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2699, 11 October 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., K.M.) Civil Cases. Bust and Hastie v. (Roberts. —LI 8s for firewood supplied. Judgment for the amount claimed, together with costs. Miller v. Le Brun. —Li Is for goods supplied. Judgment for the amount together with costs. Briscoe and Co. v. Bassett.—L2 I Is 3d 'or goods supplied. The plaintiffs admitted the receipt of L2 12s this morning, but claimed judgment for costs, 19s 3d, which was given accordingly. Fitzgerald r, Dalziel.—This was a claim for L23Bs 6d for work done. Mr Stout appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Stewart for the defendant. The plaintiff, in his evidence, stated that shortly after his arrival here from Melbourne he received employment in various capacities from the defendant. Lat erly he had been employed by Dalziel in taking out quantities far contracts. He had taken out the quantities for Bishop Seville’s residence, for the new church at Palmerston; and it was upon the material supplied by him that Dalziel based his estimates in framing his tenders. He was the successful tenderer for Briscoe’s new building, and employed him as foreman of the works. During the time he himself had a contract for alterations at the Industrial School, and Dalziel wanted him to throw up that contract and give his whole time to Briscoe’s work. He refused to do so, as it would prove injurious to his character. He then offered to give him L3OO and any wages he liked if he threw up the job and gave his whole time to the work, but he refused to do so. Afterwards they had some misunderstanding and he left. In cross-examination, he said he had considerable experience as a builder in Victoria; he was also an architect. He admitted having been arrested on a charge of arson, which had completely broken down; but denied that he had ever been convicted of any crime, (Mr Stout condemned this lino of cross-ex-amination in the absence of proof of conviction; and his Worship concurred.) He denied having come in to Briscoe’s work in a state of drunkenness. He had been employed by Dalziel to put in dummy tenders. Evidence was given as to the reasonableness of the plaintiffs charges, and as to the pl&iutiif having been introduced to Mason and Wales’s office by the defendant when he went to take out the quantities. The defence was that the plaintiff had been given employment by defendant out of charity; and that he was indebted to the plaintiff in a sum larger than what was rightfully due to him for board and lodging. The only occasion on which he hid taken out quantities, on which defendant had based his tender, was for Bishop Neville’s residence, and then he persistently recommended defendant to tender, saying that as he was doing nothing at tke time the labor would be no trouble to bin?; as if he (defendant) got the contract, the carpenter work could be done by him (plaintiff). On all other occasions plaintiff took out quantities for himself, as he tendered in his own name and not as “a dummy tenderer,” as ho alleged. It was alleged that he was discharged from Briscoe’s work because he got drunk. Judgment-for plaintiff—Ll 12s 6d and costs.