RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3284, 29 August 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Friday, August 29. (Before I. N. Watt, Esq., R.M.)

Mitchell and Ryley v. Hooper. -Claim LS 6s 6d, for fencing.—Mr E. Cook, for Mr Stout, appeared for plaintiffs, Mr Harris for defendant,—William Mitchell, one of the plaintiffs, stated that they had an agreement to ere ;t a fence between the properties of defendant and Mr Larnach, defendant sup plying the timber. Defendant saw them nearly every day while the work was going on, and, when it was finished, he arranged to meet them and pay the amount; but afterwards refused, on the ground that some of the rails were not of proper timber.— Cross-examined : Nothing was said about the fence being made according to the Ordinance. Did not put in any rotten rails, and all the posts were put in a depth of two feet six inches. If any of the po e ts were not at that depth now, defendantranstbave drawn them. —J. Ryley, partner of the last witness in the contract, gave similar evidence, adding that in parts, where the ground was uneven, the posts would not all bo in the ground to the same depth, as the tops would have to be level,—William Hooper, defendant, stated that when the agreement was made the understanding was that the fence was to be erected according to the Ordinance, and that he pointed out the wood to be used, viz , totara and goai. Part of the fence be was satisfied with, but when finishing it plaintiff put in three kaian posts and several rotten ribbonwood rails, of which lie complained. Witness offered to pay plaintiffs if they replaced the defective pirts Charles Crawford and John Dobble gave evidence to the effect that they had examined the fence, and found that several of the posts were only a few inches in the ground, averaging fourteen inches. Some of the rails were rotten, and unlit for use.—Mr Harris stated that his client was still willing to pay the claim if the plaintiffs finished the work properly, on which understanding plaintiffs were nonsuited.

Judgment was given by default in the following cases :—Hurston v. A orman Wood ; claim'L9 3s (id, for rent of ground, hire of horse, and stabling. Hayes v. Lewis : claim L 7 18s 2|d, balance of account for groceries.