| js '^Feilding R.M. Court – —

Feilding Star, 12 November 1891, Page 2

| js '^Feilding R.M. Court - —

Wednesday, November 11th, 1891. V (Before Brabant, 8.M.) E. Robinson" v. B. Roake;" claim £7. Mr Esam (who appeared for Mr Sandilands, the latter being laid up with the prevailing epidemic) represented tbe plaintiff. As the evidence of defendant had not been taken in" Wellington the case was further adjourned until nest Court day, 9th December. ' \ T. Donovan v. W. H. Salter;, claim £14 Bs. No appearance of plaintiff or defendant. Case struck out. "JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. , *" T. Hirst v.'Tapini" Martina ; 'claim ~£i 4s Bd. Mr Prior for plaintiff. Ordered to be paid in 14 days, or in default 5 days in Wanganui gaol;* --* *- * -» •> ' Same v. "H. 'Hughes; -claim £2 ls.ld. Ordered to be paid in 14 days or in default 4 days in Wanganui gaol. Same Jy *J. Jones ;_ claim / J;s>lss 2d. Ordered to be paid in 14 days,' or in default 6 days iri^Wanganui-gaol. l ' 1' Same v. W.. Cook; claim £8 16s 6d. Ordered to be paid in 14' days,, or in default^ days in Wanganui gaol., « "** „ His gave judgment in* the case Giesen v. Baker; claim '£s 9s'9dr The particulars of this case haye "already been published. Judgment was given for plaintiff fer'iNklds- 9d* and costs lis, solicitor's fee 21s. <- ll ' A. Cayannis vJ. Taylor ; claim £38 2s>i ,Mr Prior for plaintiff and. Mr Edam for defendant. This was 'a lease arising out of a contract 'for fencing. " *' ' x Plaintiff, being sworn, 'said his home was at Hawkes Bay, but' at presenthe resided at Halcombe ; had entered into acontract with defendant-, tp do certain fencing. The agreement was produced, and read by Mr Prior,* 7 who contended it was merely, a specification of the work ; was not' stamped. J and. r could not be called an agreement. ' x '--•>■*-' Mr Esam contended that the document produced was .'evidence of a special contract, and' possessed all the elements of an agreement. _The document had been placed in the hands of the witness and identified as being in the handwriting of the defendant. . '\ ' * "' , Mr Prior said he would nof tender it ineyidence. - Witness deposed: The" fence line was 140 chains; "for which he was to ' receive 9/6 to be completed Ist September last ; one end of the - line was heayy and the ojther'was light'work ; 'started at the heavy' end ; cleared. 61 chains ; there were o chains extra!; across a bad gully ;» 'making 66 chains' in till ;' ln'-tHe middle 'of 'Juuet f hey'^asked * him* to ' su&lefcthe other end of the fencing; told themto^ let the whole lot,, and witness would go away,as there, waa, not , enough? mpneyin the job ; because if they 1 took away the light part he would make nothing out of it; they said' they did nofcwfsh him to ''goraway; however, they let'tfae'cantract, and thus broke their' agrepmenij worked by himself %r a< -timeV^saw Taylor, who said he would pay , the storekeeper's bill and plaintiff would' lose"the i titne he .had Jpufc^m'th? job ; , the v clearing ,costJabout 4/6 perphain,;-last f Court day "defendants offered £7 to settle" the 3 case **■ when Mr Booth spbke to witness her said he would „ takethe amount of Ratliff'sclaim which" 'defendants ' Kad/;agreed-' to*pay*; **lcfr L 'l6 weeks had glven'his 'labor for nothing. Mr. Esam prose-examined :, Mrv Taylor did notagfee'topay him"£2/2r'per week or any other sum; bad signed thejspecificat^on produced by Mr Prior ; duTriot appbintaa arbitrator when the" dispute, arose ; -did riot finish the contract because f he'could•not get "men; and-he^couldr.not do the work alone ;? and if jhe ? did^get the men .there was,no money to~paythem; told Mr.Taylor he .could not get mates ; Taylor sent two men ; ' one '^was sick'and tiie r other worked^for 'apout 1 ten7days ; they left because there was not enough money * in the job*; 'Taylor asked' him to Bub-let a part ; told him . to let cthe lot ; , -volun - tanly gave up the>work; jTaylor^promised, m his own house, to pay Hatlifr's account; the clearing^ dope was , worth more than * 2/-' per had "split 64 - posts and 5 strainers' worflV in all £2 os, John Cruickshank deposed: He*khew ' the fencing line : Cavannis did 66 chains ; the Jabor was worth 4/6 perjTchain y strainers'are worth 5s eaoh and posts are worth 25s per, 100. „ . , , , *,. t^ Cross-examined: Did not /see the Une until after the* fencing' was *up; yalued the clearing as' he' found it ; not immed- r lately after Cavannis had left it; saw only one post, took his wprd for the rest. Re-examined : The estimate of 4/6 was for what Cavannis had done; he had moyed everything, that -one man could shift. i ;<- ;•* r; c i^ \- For^the 'defence Mr Esam called-^* J. H. Taylor,- who deposed he was a - farmer residing at Makino,; -the contract -was 1 to 'he ifi September ; sent Cavannis two joaen. ; .they stayed a week or nine day's 1 then left ; saw Cavannis again and askecTmm r to pnslfonthe work as "they Wanted i to 'get "'the stock on the ground ; < Cavannis )said 'he could jget no mates i offered to give plaintiff 6d more for his end, and wonld get other men to do the rest; Cavannis was 'willing, and had he not been could-not hay the work ; V Cavannis j was r on the ground, but was not doing much "work; heisaw witness at the house, saying he could not go ou with the job ; said nothing to Cavannis about RatliiTs account ;i did -'not become responsible for this ; told witness <■ what -he' owed' Ratliff "for^ stores, hut he did not ask witness to pay the bdl, and even if he had, done so, would not have agreed to pay the account ; Cavannis left and " went to Buchanan's; did not put day men on L to finish the l job until the time of the contract had nearly expired ; Cavannis partly cleared 61 chains ; after "Cavannis 'left -had tol clears all f the big timber and the gullies ; the „ value of the work done-was ,3s per chain j/, be split 6| Eosis, worth from 20s to 22s 6d per j. 00 j c sawed 5, but squared only 3 strainingposts. } > / '7 2 The evidence of Messrs. H. "J, Booth, P. Richardson, R, Taylor,' and E. Cornwall corroborated. The ~R'M. gave judgment ""and at the same time complimented the defendants on the fair spirit they 1 had shown. The verdict was for plaintiff for L3 l3s 9dJ each - party to pay their own posts, The assault" case Bielski v. Richmond r^ was adjourned until, next Court day to -^U allow the particulars to be amended." 1 M Miss Watts v. Mrs Wrightson ; claim ,P 18s. Mr Esam* for plaintiff.' . Mr Prior for defendant ! '«.m This was a -claim for making a dress. r Mr Esam said no doubt.the^ dross would be tried on f.or_the information, ol the Court, , : i , .»^ 5 ,> „ Mr Prior said he did not intend to follow the example, of the, higher s coufts in England in similar cases. Mr Prior indicated the chief points of the defence. The BM. asked if the claim for" materials wasadmitted. _ , ,_ Mr Prior said— No, they were paid for. The amount claimed formed part of a larger amount, 16s and [not ,18s, was the correct amounf. ~ „ t Margaret Watts deposed: Shejras a dressmaker, and had bpen. i^jtuexnegg f or 5 years ; made MrajWnghtson 2 dresses ; she had, paid 'for one"; 12/6. f was a fair sum to charge w for°the dress for which she had not been paid ; Mrs Wrightson found the>' material ;' Witness 'found the lining and silesia; the extras were the whalebone and-the belting ; went to Mrs Wrightson at, her - request ; ' afterwards fitted on the bodice ; thacLworked ior her before ; ehe hadjiever obmplamed direst • Mrs Wnghtsoixasked her to^fit the Weed " -' "dress^aV^pcond^ time ; "made the tweed dress'tightgr than' the other and sennit S home; about a mor^th afterwards Mrs 'M \ Wrightson called and said the dress was *M too tight— this was in January; Mra-j||

Wngbtspn never aent tha-slrej§ to wit ness workroom to * be* 'altered ) coult ttot Bay whether I the dress fitted in Be cember. f - rT _, , „ , r^ Oross-examined : Fitted' on the limng * tho sleeyosjwero not~ attached t > nor A t ßkirtrßimply the bodrce^iuing ; wasjoU when^MrajWrightson/ called; had no seen 'her since; scut the account am asked for a settlement^did.not icfuse_ti alter the dress; had the mistake beei wi'nops would hay'e^alteied- the dfes9 - Re-examined : Sent for the account dr lier sistet in Apul. j^ '„ t 'r Alice Watte deposed: She was anas sistaut te &r> sisteL at the time tho dres in dispute" was made; the bodice of th dress was tried oriTn her piesonce ; hcan 'JUrs^Wiightson ask to* have the made tighter because she. > got thinne when the summer-came on ; Mrs Wright j. son caliedq again eaicL the sleeve were too tight and she cpuld pot-get th< dress to meet ; (gaje other partictilara) had seen Mrs Wrightson with the dress on Cross-examined: „Only f saw Mr Wrigttson twice on both occasions sh< said. the sleeves wore to - ) tight; andthi skfrt did not hang "right; 'did not admi the dress did not fitwell ; saw the sleeve were a. little j tight u '»(''i f ; y- £ Mary Ellen „lleald_ deposed; She wai "'pT^Rli assistant woi king , with Miss* Watts "remembered Mrs Wnghtsoi coming* tc " have a tweed diessj.tyed pn ; Mis Wright son asked for a tight t fat/'- v * Th s was the case ior^the plaintiff. ' For the defence, Mr Prior called Mrs Wnghtson^r who deposed : She hac ordered two dresses from t Miss Watts had asked to have the stuff , dress tried or again ; only4he bodice was tried en^ the Whole dress^ was not T tiied on. "until sht got ltrbome {7the#l««yv3 -were foo tight , described the" dress; Jtook it to "Miss Scoti and paid 44s to haye, it i altered to make "it fit; irecoived a' message frpm-Miss Watts saymg.she iefused to alter it; and she could take it to" another dressmakei if she likedl"*' s J J*_ Cross-examined^: —The" cashmere dres= suited; gaye J special directions as to lh making oLthe dress ; could not bear the sleeves on her arms ; ( cut; a stich on the inside ; did not ask the sleeves to be made tight ; did not send the^dress down because she understood that Miss Watts would come round to her house Miss Scott deposed : She was a dress^ makeup Mrs Wnghtson's dress had ne"w sleeves pnt on and altered the skut ; Mrs Wrightson could not possibly wear the dress; duLndt alter" the bodice; charged 14b for the work, which had been paid. J Cross examined ;. Would have charged " 168 6d for making the dress ; could not tell the date •/ the skirt-was badly made.it would notohang ,properly ;' the 'careless 'hanging jup jn. a fwardrobaj would not make^?any,. t difference^ skirt7 l was Twisledln the'^making; the style a little, the fashion had not been changed. Be :"* The dress was new; "there -was f not enough -selvage left in-' the sleeves'to'enlargethem; had to-inake new rsleavee; thejnorkiwaßihnd-. j^i j i ,'Houor Turner deposed.: u She was a spr ! vanf* with j^rs , knew i the dress ;iiadJieTpe.a Mrs Wrightson to put 'it'on^naiakVit^ff/aml the sleeves were, so tight she had le hang on to it, and ihe t tightness of the -sleeves made marks on, Mrs^Wßgfiion 7 ? r arms, clhV.dtess something fngbtful.j. r c » - - Cross-examined": WWays y 18 last May; had seen mueffsef vice aslou-lady's maid.' the case for^ther defence Judgment lor plaintiff J.6s,„aiid costs 6s. "^ The HIW. "said The 'case' ought not ta ' have Been brbught ffito Court. i ' i ** Mrs M. Johnson y Miln ;' Ll4 12s. Mr Esam for-plaintnT. Judgment " for plaintiff anebcosts.^ » - » tl ' Colonists) Land ri and'Loan Gorporaticjn f v F. Palmer.;- claun L18 i lBs J 6d.f^Mrj Esam for plaintiff and Mr Pnor'for de-i i^ -j-fendant,'- Judgment for i plaintiff >witH '^-coste^tto^ be paid at the late of 10s pec S^On the applicatron'bf Mr Esam defendant's, costs were^. allowed m the ■• Bonovari v Baiter, heard last Court dayj