Feilding R.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume IX, Issue 74, 10 December 1887, Page 2

Feilding R.M. Court

(Before R. Wardy Esq., 8.M.) (Continued from Thursday). A. Goldflinch v. X Manson. — Claim £23. Me Prior for plaintiff, and Mir Staite for defendant. This was & claim for work donef in post and wire fencing, . ; Arthur Goldnfich deposed: He was % contractor at Taonui ; they had agreed at 8s a chain for erecting a fence in March, 1887 ; the contract was a verbal one according to written specifications in which the distance apart of the posts was not stated, and they i put them 7 feet apart; Mr Smith, ; agent for defendant, passed what work | was done ; the line was 57 chains, and : after 52 were done, the men who were doing the work were stopped' by Mr I Smith, who said they would hot be; \ allowed to finish the line unless they took another at the same price, which witness said was worth more. '- Adolph Goldfinch, who worked on the job, gave similar evidence to that of his brother as to the nature of th* work, and the action of the agent. In the course of cross-examination, a> letter was put in written by witness to defendant, in which some apologies were made, which witness admitted had reference to some imperfections as to the straining of the wires. No witnesses were called for the defence. Mr Prior contended that where ft contract was; entered; into for a certain amount of work and the parties were stopped without sufficient reason they could claim for the full amount. Mr Staite replied to that argument that the parties were stopped because they were not fulfilling the contract; His Worship held that the plaintiff ought to have /been allowed to complete the work, and he would,therefore give judgment for the full amount and costs, £28 13s. ' ■ Peters v. Grace (re-hearing). Plaintiff deposed to be being at work for defendant at Palmerston ; he , sent him to Feilding to 100k ■• after a shop; after being there a fortnight witness got written notice from defendant to. quit the . place next dav ; had refused a job of regular work in. order to serve Mr Grace. _ ' Cross-examined : Agreed to take the shop for 15s on Mr Grace's part, ,- and 5s on his own part for one month only ; there- was no agreement, but he might have told Mr Whitehead he was going to Feilding to do the jobs at piece work, and have a commission . on the sales. For the defence, '.;' James Grace deposed he was a bo*it and shoe importer, Palmerston North; plaintiff solicited employment of him and he gave him three weeks work ; plaintiff told witness he thought there was an opening in Feilding ; author- ; ised him to engage Neary's shop ; after he had been there a few days witness lost confidence in him and sent a young man named Kendal to sell. the goods, and Peers was only to da the "jobbing work. ■ Witness was briefly cross-examined* Plaintiff was re-put into the box by Mr Hankins, and pointed out from the day book the items of reoeipts for repairs, and corrected some of his former statements, C. Whitehead, baker, of Palmerston North, gave evidence of plaintiff saying he was going to work for Grace at piecework at Feilding. W. Kendal, storeman, deposed to ; Grace telling Peters in witness' presence that he (witness) was to sell, and take charge of the money, and Peters made no remark. . .•.'.:' Judgment was given for defendant; and costs. ■ Mr Prior brought before the Court the case of Marsh v. Marsh, in which an order was made in the Court at Palmerston under the Destitute Per- . sons Act against - the defendant. Since then the parties had, he had learned, again cohabited, and he (Mr Prior) asked His Worship to give an order for staying execution under the, circumstances. Mr Hankins said he represented the complainant when the ease was heard . at Palmerston, and he would object to the order of that Court being interfered with merely on the ground of an exparte statement. His Worship did not think he Had any power to make such an order aa that requested, and any suoh statement as Mr Prior had made would have to be given in evidence in are* hearing application, which could be made in the Court at Palmerstonv The Court then adjourned.