RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 2906, 12 June 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., E.M.) Civil Cases. Hinsley and Thomas v. Wood Brothers. — L2O. Mr Shapter for the plaintiff, Mr Stout for the defendant. This was an action to recover the amount of profit that would have accrued from the performance of a certain contract entered into with the defendants, but with which they interfered, as it was alledged, to prevent the completion of. The evidence of the plaintiff Hinsley showed that he and his partner entc ed into a contract for labor, connected with the wood-work of a house being built for Mr Hay, to be completed in ten weeks ; four pounds a week to be paid while the work was proceeding, and the balance when the work was completed. On the 18th May, Mr Norman Wood told plaintiffs they had fixed some sash-frames against his will, and they were to take them out again. He ordered them also to take their tools away. The evidence was confirmed by Thomas. For the defence it was stated that there was no such agreement as state I by the plaintiffs, and that the reason why they were stopped was that, as the slates were not on the house it would have been wrong for plaintiffs to lay the floors and put in the sashes, as exposure to the weather would injure them. Alfred Wood, one of the defendants, gave evidence in support of those sbat ements. There was no agreement as to the time within which the work was to be completed. Andrew Dunn estimated the value of the work done at LlB 4s. He knew nothing of any work prepared but not on the building. Mr Shapter, for the plaintiffs, asked for a nonsuit, which was granted Winstanley v. Neville—Ls. This was an adjourned case. It was a claim for the amount of an I 0 U, with interest. The defendant did not appear. Mr M ‘Keay for the plaintiff. The case was adjourned for production of the I 0 U. Bank of Otago v. Gregg.—Mr Jas. Smith appeared and asked for arehearing of this case, which had been dismissed on the ground that there wis no balance of evidence in favor of Campbell or Gregg. Mr Smith contended, no matter which evidence was correct, the Bank was equally entitled to the judgment of the Court. Mr M‘Keay appeared for Gregg. Mr Smith cited Young v. Grote, 4 Bingham, 253, commented on in Smith’s leading cases. 775, in the Duchess of Kingston’s case. Ingram v. Primrose, 28 Law Journal, 294. Mr McKeay opposed the rehearing, on the ground that material alteration had been made without the consent of the acceptor, and cited several cases to prove that the acceptor was discharged. Mr Smith replied, and contended that no answer had been given to the point raised of negligence on the part of the acceptor. His Worship took time to consider the matter.