Feilding R.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume IX, Issue 148, 14 July 1888, Page 3

Feilding R.M. Court

Thursday, July 12, 1888. (Before R. Ward, Esoj., R.M.) (Continued.) W. Neary v. 11. Pric9. — Claim for deposit ou a bet on a horse, in which the defendant was alleged to be the stakeholder. The evidence given was somewhat conflicting, and judgment was given for the amount and costs. H. White v. W. Johnston.— This was a case where a calf was reserved from custody of plaintiff, who had impounded the same. It was evidently the outcome of ill feeling between the parties, who are neighbors residing at Halcombe. The evidence given was of a somewhat amusing character, and revealed some rather unpleasant relations. Judgment was given for 5s and 9s costs. Malcolm Bell v. Frank Owen and w ife.— Claim £28 5e 9d. Mr Staite for plaintiff, and Mr Sandilands for defendant. The summons was amended to strike out the name of the firstnamed defendant, and to make the claim £17 12s 4d, being balance due on contract for building a house for the defendant, including extras. Charles Bray, Civil Engineer, de- j posed to having the supervision of building the house in question ; there was a certain dispute, which was submitted to arbitration (particulars of which were given) j the timber was not stacked on the ground for two or three weeks after the time agreed; had not given plaintiff a certificate for payment, as witness considered there was a set-off due to defendant from the delays. Cross-examined : No delays were caused by witness not letting contractor have piano and specifications in time ; told plaintiff that he would be fined if he did'nt push on with the work. Mr Staite here read the agreement referred to arbitration, and the award (£135 5s 9d) given by the arbitrators, W. D. Nicholas and F. Pope. His Worship ruled that the plaintiff could only sue for the amount of £7 19s 2d, mentioned in the arbitration. Frank Owen, surveyor, and husband of defendant, deposed to Mr Bray wanting from him a copy of the specifications for contractor to work with; these were supplied in good time ; witness gave evidence of certain delays and extras ; the agreement for extras had nothing to do with causing delays; plaintiff did not start work for some time after that was agreed upon. Cross-examined : There was not a week's delay in Bell getting the specifications ; did'nt know when signing the arbitration that it settled the matter of fines ; did not remember telling plaintiff be would pay him when he got money from the Foxton Small Farm Association. Malcolm Bell gave evidence of the particulars of his claim ; there were certain alterations made to the specifi~*cations before he commenced the contract, which were described by plaintiff ; these caused delays in the work ; when he signed the contract he could not get the specifications to go on with, and had to go on with another job elsewhere; they was a delay of about three weeks m getting the timber, through the river being in flood ; after the award was made defendant promised to pay him after being paid for some survey work by the Foxton Small Farm Association. Witness was cross-examined as to the dates when the timber was delivered, and the causes of delay. Both counsel agreed to leave the matter with His Worship, who gave judgment for £7 19s 2d and costs. The Court then adjourned.