Folding R.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume VII, Issue 131, 15 April 1886, Page 2

Folding R.M. Court

Wednesday, 14th Apbix., 1886.

(Before It. Ward, Esq., B.M)

William Carr was charged with v being drunk on Tuesday night- Prisoner pleaded guilty. -He pleaded not guilty to a second charge of resisting the police. Constable Meehan described the offence.

On the first charge prisoner *wtfsfined 5s or 24 hours imprisonment. On the second charge he was sentenced" to seven days in Wanganui gaol /with^ hard labor.

c CIVIL CASES. — . x-: .r'j G. Oriclitoii t P. FlavaH.—Claira £12 6a 9d. Plaintiff . pwwsed-i the claim. Judgment for plaintiff and costs, 28s. , r \ , v W. G. HaybitttevW. Cook.^Cla&i^ £8 2s 3d. No appearance of plaintiff. Case struck out. Kirton and Curtis v A. B, F. Johnston.—Claim £1 . Judgment 1 - : Xix~ plaintiffs and costs. E. J. Cottrell v A. PinsenJ.— Claim £8 18s. Mr Sandilands objected on behalf of defendant, as the particulars of the account were not giiren. 'I Mr Staite appeared for plaintiff. . r E. J. Cottrell deposed that.ia-Oc-tober last, defendant and his wife.admitted the correctness of the account, and since then 80s had been offered to keep the affair out of Courty r4- ; r • p Cross-examined: On 27th October a balance was agreed upon. (The case was here adjourned to next court day.) -0^ M. Keen v T. Gordon.— Claim £2 Ids on judgment summons. No.,appearance of defendant. The amount ; to be paid forthwith or in default three days in Wanganni gaol. t .-.'■. r . T. Thompson and Stephen Walsh ▼ Bailey Bros.— Claim £26 10b . ldl, £17 14s 7d and costs 17s had beenpaid into court; and a set-off of £2 11s filed. vi ■ Mr Staite appeared for plaintiff and ■ Mr Prior for defendants. ; / ' i (Particulars of this case were given^' in our report of the proceedings last court day when plaintiff was non suited on a certain point.) - Vm Bailey, one of the. defendants, deposed that he was a sawmiller, at. Taonui ; sometime ago arranged with plaintiffs to construct a tramway at 18s per chain ; this tram was to enable plaintiffs to bring down logs to fulfil a contract, to feed the mill^ plaintiffs were to lay the tramway properly and keep it in repair ; the tram was to be measured and inspected ; found it so defective he refused to take it over ; the tram was nerer taken over, refused to do so in the presence of the plaintiff Welsh ; 97 chains were made in all, 20f of which were defective;: it would cost 10s per chain to put the tram in order.

Cross-examined : Complained to Welsh of the defective tramway each, time witness was in the bush ; four. niuuths ago the tram was completely paid for ; it has been constantly used ; it was a part of the contract that the tram should he kept in repair ; had seen the tram twice before the payment; complained of its condition; Welsh said he would put it right ; the tram is still in use; trams are intended to remain as long as they are wanted, and to be shifted if necessary ; when witness refused to measure the tram Welsh asked what he should do> and witness merely turned away from him ; the young man who drove the trucks had complained of the tram

Thomas Thompson, bnshman, at Taonui. deposed that he had taken a contraot with Welsh to make a tram; had assisted to make about 80 chains ; had been to the work since ; the work done by Welsh was inferior; it would take 6s per chain to make it good. E. Hall deposed, that he had been working for Bailey Bros, for eight years as driver ; knew where: Thompson's work concluded and Welsh's began ; the latter was not well constructed; witness described the delects.

Walter Bailey deposed that he was; a party in the suit; had been on the tram before Welsh left it ; it was altogether a very paltry tram ; the driver complained when he had an accident f the horses had barely escaped > alvays retained a percentage of work in hand to coyer possible defects ; it is always customary for trams to be examined and passed before being taken over; the mill had never been stopped by this defective tram, because the firm had another contractor who supplied logs; the tram was paid for subject to approval ; it was for ihis purpose jfr W. Bailey went up; he did 'not pas» it. ' ■■".•"'.. .;'

Henry Adsett deposed that he was v a sawmUler at Taonui; had been up the tram in question to inspect it ; saw the portions made by Walsh ; about 20$ chains ; it was a very, bad tram; the sleepers are. small and too ; short ; they are too high off th© ground ; the bridge over the gulley was not safe; a fair price for constructing a tram is 16s per chain ; 18s is the top price; Thompson's work was good; it would cost 6s or 7b a chain to make the tram good ; the badness of the tram might, delay the delivery' of the logs ; never finally settled up for a tram until it wai measured.

Gross-examined : Would not consider using the tram was taking it over; if it had been used for four months and paid for, he would eonaider that taking it over. , Mr Staite spoke on the evidence.: Stephen Walsh deposed that he had received suggestions from W. Bailey about the bridge; had endeavored to comply with them; it was only ft branch tram he had to put down off th« main tram; it was fit to take all the timber out of that bush ; Mr Bailey's principal objection was to the bridge ; there was no particular grade. Counsel having addressed the Court The B.M. said, as a jury he was of opinion that the tram was not properly made. Under the circumstances the mere fact of the tram having been used and payment made did not amount to an acceptance of the tram. >

The claim of £6 4s 6d which Bailey Bros, made is excessive. He would allow £4 4s 6dL The set-off of £2 lls would be allowed. Judgment for plaintiff for £2 over the amount paid into qourt and costs. Counsels fee 21s. H. Cameron v H. Hughes. — Claim £21 6a. This was a claim on a promisory note due in January last. Mr Prior for plaintiff and Mr Staite for defendant.

Plaintiff deposed that the promisory note had been presented for payment and dishonored.

Mr Staite pleaded that defendant was a Maori, also that the bill was paid, part in account. His Worship said the defendant could not be considered to be a Maori within the meaning of the Act. Judgment for £5 10s and costs 345.

J. and C. Bull v Menzies. — Claim £11 6s. £1 6s and costs 12s had been paid into court, and a set-off of £10 filed.

Mr G-oodbehere appeared far the defendant and stated his case.

E. Menzies deposed that in 1878 he yr&B employed by Mr Bull to put in an iron tram and a turntable; he was also employed by Mr Bull to go through a totara bush to prove it before he laid the tramway into it. Cross-examined: Did not remember the date of the work.

• James Bull deposed that Menzies had rendered certain services to him ; bad let the contract for laying the tramway before witness sold the mill to his brother Charleß; settled up with Menzies before witness left for England. Gh J. Scott deposed that he was accountant for Messrs J. and C. Bull ; the entry of £10 was from the butt of a cheque, and marked "Tramway," signed by Charles Bull; the money was paid for work done subsequent to the purchase of the mill by Charles Bull.

William Bailey deposed that he was in charge of the Oroua mill at the time it was sold to Charles Bull ; the work was done by Menzies some time before.

Charles Bull deposed that the claim WB* for money paid after witness became the owner of the mill.

Judgment for £10 over the amount paid into court, with costs. James Bull v E. Dory.— Claim £9 11s 7d. Mr Prior for defendant.

Win. Bailey deposed that he remembered defendant getting certain timber from Bull's mill.

James Norman deposed that he was employed at the mill at the time the timber was delivered ; had applied to Bury for the money and he pleaded bis inability to pay but had never denied being the responsible party. E. Dury deposed that he had not fought the timber ; he had carted it for Hareta ; she had ordered the timber; Norman did not ask for tho money. By the court : The timber was used in building a house for Hareta. Hareta, a native lady, deposed : Sllu remembered ordering some timl c from Bull's; made arrangements with Mr Bull (James) ; he agreed to let her have the timber; she told Bull she would send her son-in-law, Dury, for the timber; the house is now leased to a European ; Dury fetched the timber; that was all Dury had to do with it. Mr James Bull deposed that Hareta did not apply to him for the timber ; had never any dealings with her ; would have trusted her readily. Judgment for plaintiff and costs. Haybittle v W. Cook.— Claim £8 2s 3d. Mrs Cook appeared for her husband, and disputed the claim for interest of 12s.

The B.M. allowed 9s for interest, the whole amount to be paid at 10s a month.

The court then adjourned.