RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3117, 14 February 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) CIVIL OASES. Watt v. F. Finamore. —Claim Ll2 16s 10d, op dishonored acceptance. Ju igment by default for amount claimed with costs Scanlon y. John ' Jackspn.-T-Claim L2O 6s 3d, on dishonored bill. Judgment by default for amount claimed with costs. Same v. Cummings,--Claim L3l Is 9d, on two dishonored bills. Judgment for full am -unt with costs. Same v. John Clarke.—No appearance. Case struck out. Blackadder y, James Eadcliff.—Claim L 39 19s 3cl, oh dishonored bill, Judgment by default for full amount with costs. Anderson and Mouatt v. Samuel Boyle,— Claim L 33 13s id, for goods sold and delivered. Judgment by default for amount claimed with costs.

Levi v. Samuel Boyle.—Claim L3I, ou dishonored promissory note. Mr Stout appeared for plaintiff. 'Judgment by default for amount claimed with costs.

K<ith Ramsay v. Samuel Boyle.—Claim L 25 9s 4.1, for freight, insurance, and services rendered. Judgment by default for amount claimed with costs. Newmau and apother v. the Mornington Road Boa r d, — Claim LJOO, for work and labor done and matenal supplied by plaintiff as contractor for the Board. Mr Stout appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr Haggitt for the defendants, who pleaded not indebted. Neill Douglas, contractor, said he and Mr Newman were iu partnership, and performed some work for the Mormngton Road Boaid iu January, 1872. About that time they tendered for the forming and metalling of a piece of road within the district of Mornington. He produced the tender. The tender was accepted bn th,e #vaujng of the day on which it Was sent in. A day qr two after the work was commenced, it was found that one of the culverts described in the specificationwould not answer. The engineer, Mr Campbell, therefore told them, that they should tender for the removal °f an °ld culvert,’ and the putting in of a new stone ppe, They tendered accordingly, fixing the price of the stone work at 8s per foot. The total cost was L 43 4s. The tracing produced was the one they had to go by, but the inspectors told them to do a lot of extra filling at the lower end of the road. The cutting starts at nothing pc both en4 B > and rises to over two feet iu the centre, The inspectors and engineers were referred to in the specilication. Messrs Wright and i hompsou were members of the former Board, aud acted as inspectors. The voucher produced was the first received by them : it was dated March 20th, 1872. Most of the work was done after that date. He could not tell how the istimate of the work was made up, The stone culvert was not finished at that time. The wwk »fe JBi|ia w*4, w towa w toe

small plan produced, was a part of the contract, and was commenced by plaintiffs in May, 1872. With regard to the Argyll street road, they completed the work in accordance with instructions from Mr Campbell, and finished it about the 26th of May. They were then two or three days idle, when they called at Mr Campbell’s house on three different occasion l , but did not see Mm. They were idle to the sth of June, because they had no instructions to go on with the work. He saw Mr Wright, one of the inspectors, who asked him why they were not working, and scolded them for not going on with the metalling of the road. They informed him of the absence of the engineer, and he replied that they should see .'or Thompson. 1 his took place on the sth, and on ihe following day Mr Thompson measured he first portion of the raebd, aid ordered it to he spread. It was spread accordingly. About fifty-eight yards of metal was not yet ,-pread, because the engineer had found fault with the curve at the top of Argyll street, and told them not to spread it. This was about the IBfch of June, and on the 15ih of July they received the letter and tracing produced from the engineer. After the 18th of June, they received L 22 from the Board. They tendered for the laying down of spawls on Elgin road. The tender was accepted, and the work was completed by orders of the engineer. Mr Campbell, however, objected to toe work. —Cross-examined: I here was no tender between witness and the former Board for El7O. The work he contracted to do for the Board was according to the specilica.ion, and amounted to iH4I 16s Bd, together with extra wo;k in the shape of a culvert, at 8s per foot He knew nothing about a contract tor LI7O. He supposed that the difference between the sum' mentioned in the tender and that in the information was for extra filling at the bottom of the street, which necessitated extra ea ting. He was never asked, and he never agreed with Thompson or any one else, to nuild nine feet of the culvert at the rate of 5s per foot. He could uoc toll exactly how much the extra tilling cost. The LL7O was not made up by the addition of the extra cpst of the culvert to the original contract. There was no date on the memorandum received from the engineer, bub it was received iu .way. He warned more money when the voucher was presented lo the Boaid, but tue engineer refused, and ue did nut £.et it.—Benjamin' Newman, one of the plaintiffs, said ne and last witness made tue cuttings accoidmg to tue plan produced. They tided up two or three chains 1 at the bottom of Argyll street by order of Air ihompoon Tne work iu Elgin road was also done according to the plan. In - rgyll street tuey did work more than was actually required by the contract so far as the gradient was concerned,— Cross-examined : The Ll7O shown iu the bill of particulars was taken from the voucher filled in by defendants, witness supposed that it was the intention of the Board to give them something for the extra work. At the time they did the extra carting they intended charging for it, but be did not suppose it would have amount..d to L3U There was no length specified lor the culvert. They spread auout 17U yards of metal before they were stopped, leaving about 50 yards n-t spread. Left sitting.