RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3272, 15 August 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Friday, August 15. (Before I, N. Watt, Esq., R.M.)

K. Wilson v. David Bowers.—Claim, L2 5s for sacks, the property of plaintiff. Mr !Stout appeared for defendant. Plaintiff stated that his agents in Hokitika forwarded to him in defendant’s vessel 366 dozen sacks, of which defendant only delivered 363 dozen. —Defendant said that some of the sacks were tied up in bundles of twelve each, and that on counting some of the bundles they were short in number. He therefore signed a receipt for 366 dozen sacks, more or less, not having time to count them. Judgment for defendant, with costs. Carver v, Attwood. —Claim, L2 10s, balance of account for repairs to express waggon. Plaintiff admitted that a man named Brown, who was driving the express, gave him the order for the repairs, saying it belonged to defendant, who, however, denied the liability, on the ground that Brown had hired the express from him. Judgment was given for defendant with costs, as plaintiff' had received no proper authority to do the work.

Dearden v. Murphy.—Claim L2l4s Gd, for work done.—Mr Stout appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Wilson for defendant, who put in a set off of L2 2s. and pleaded not indebted for the remainder,—Plaintiff stated that he had a contract to erect a house for defendant at Kaitangata, He also did certain extra work for defendant at hia request, for which he was to be paid at the current rate of carpenters’ wages, and which was the subject of the present action.—Cross examined : There was only an hour and a-half s work remain-

ing to be done on the job. Since witness left Kaitaugata he bad written to defendant stating that tho amount due -was Lls 15s.— lie-examined : It was at defendant’s request that the work was left unfinished. —Joseph Murphy, defendant, stated that the work was not completed, the flooring boards not being nailed down, and the gables unfinished. Did not agree with plaintiff to pay him 12s a day for the extras. Plaintiff was perpetually drunk at tho time, and therefore unable to do the work properly.—Cross-examined ; Expected to pay plaintiff 11s a day for the extras, but now objected, as the work was not properly done. It was witness’s own fault that he did not dismiss plaintiff, who was both drunk and insane while doing the extra work. Objected to pay the claim because of the unworkmanlike manner in which the work was done, not on account of plaintiff's drunkenness and insanity —James Brown, carpenter, of Kaitangato, had inspected the work in question, which he considered unfinished in several particulars. Tho value of plaintiff’s extra work was about L 9 or ' LlO. Cross-examined : -Nailing the flooringboards of each room would take about half a day, but witness would not do it for less than a day’s wages. —His Worship allowed the set-off, and also deductions from some of the items on account of their incompleteness, giving judgment for plaintiff for Ll6 4s, including costs. Judgment was given by default in the following cases:—Mitchell and Kyley v. W. Hooper : claim L 8 6s 6d for fencing done. Lawrence v, Macgowan : claim LI, for copying theatrical parts. Briscoe and Co. v. Frew : claim L 29 9s. Holmes v. Arenas : claim L 7, for money lent.