Feilding R.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume XIV, Issue 53, 22 October 1892, Page 2

Feilding R.M. Court

(Before Mr Brabant, EM.) The following cases were heard after we went to press on Thursday last. Thomas Perm v. Alex. Munro; claim £20 3s 2d for bushfelling at Birmingham. Mr Prior for the plaintiff, Mr Hankina for the defendant. Thomas Perm deposed that he tendered for some bushfelliug on Mr Munro's property, at 21s 6d per acre for falling only, this sum not to include underscrubwg. All the rata was to come down up to about three feet, all totara was to be left standing, and the dry timber felled up to 18 inches, Munro to do the underscrubbmg himself to 4 inches, all other timber to he felled. Witness' tender was accepted for 100 acres more or less. Plaintiff's claim was for felling 18 acres 3 roods 2 perches and was measured by him with a man named Hartley. The defendaut declined to pay, as he asserted the work was not done according to speci* fications, and witness said he was willing to do any thing reasonable to complete the job, and hirfed men for that purpose. Defendant said if witness would sign to finish the job by October, he would pay him7s per cent on account. Witness declined the offer. Ultimately however he got men from Akaroa and went on with the job. Munro refused to pay anything unless witness would firatfiman the work. Witness has had his measurements checked, and they are correct. Cross-examined by Mr Hankins: Witness wrote the tender in Harry Munro's shop, without looking at the specifications. Subsequently the defend* ant met witness on the road, and he said he had accepted the latter's tender. Plaintiff knocked off, because Munro declined to pay him, but Munro said if witness finished the whole contract he would then pay him 75 per cent. The plaintiff now declined to complete the work, as Munro had given so much trouble. W. D. Hartley gave evidence that he did the work with Perm, and assisted him to measure the amount done. Cross-examined by Mr Hankins : Wit* ness did not take any memorandum of the quantities. Godfrey Aldridge, stated that he assisted Perm to fall the bush in question, and said the work had been done according to specifications. By the Bench : It is usual to give progress payments, and witness expected to be paid by Perm for the work he did. Witness has been engaged at this work for over ten years. Sometimes as a contractor, hired man, or shares, and had always received a progress payment. Cross-examined by Mr Hankins: Witness had often taken contracts without progress payments being stated in contract. Mr Hanking stated his defence was that at the time the contract was taken no mention was made that the plaintiff was entitled to a payment on ' account of wages, and that no payment could be demanded until the whole contract was finished. If the young man were willing to complete the contract, his client agreed to allow the plaintiff to complete the job. Alexander Munro deposed, That the specifications about the job were posted in Harry Munro's shop at Birmingham, and were identical with the verbal particulars given to Perm. Witness accepted Perm's tender, on condition that he felled from 50 up to 75 acres. Not a word was said about payment on account of work dene. The work was not done according to specifications, and witness complained to Perm about it. Witness would give him till Christmas to finish the job. Cross-examined by Mr Pnor : Had Perm agreed to enter into a fresh con* tract, defendant was prepared to make him a payment on account of work done. Defendant disputed the accuracy of Perm's measurements. Henry Boggis for the defence, corroborated Munro's evidence that the work was not finished according to specifications, but the difference was immaterial. By the Bench : Witness considered 5s an acre would finish the job in a satis* factory manner. , Mr Hankina argued that the plaintiff was bound to complete the contract before he could demand payment, and quoted Chitty on Contracts in support of his contention. Mr Prior in reply urged that in all contracts of this sort, the custom was for •payments to be made on account of work already done, as was shown by Aldridge's evidence. His Honor in giving judgment said, it appears that the plaintiff did not see the specifications, that the agreement was a verbal one, that it was made in a very loose fashion, bat the work was not done according to specifications. There was no evidence before the Court, as to how payments were to be made, both parties differ as to the terms of payment. The plaintiff was entitled to some sum on account of work. Judgment was given for plaintiff for the sum of £16 4s, with costs £2 195, and solicitor's fee 21s. Leave to appeal was refused. The adjourned case of Augusta Palenski, who applied for a prohibition order against her husband Hugh Palenski was considered. Mr Baker appeared for the complainant, and Mr Sandilands for the defendant. Constable Touhy stated that he knew the defendant ; he had seen the man in drink twice or three times, and when in drink he was a dangerous man. The order was granted for the term of one year, to apply to Halcombe, Feildmg, Birmingham, and Bunnythbrpe. S. J. Thompson v. Wm. Christensen, claim £82 5s 8d for goods supplied. Mr Sandilands for the plaintiff. Judgment for the amount claimed, with costs 40s and solicitor's fee 21s. George Mcßride v. A. E. Dowdsell, claim i'B. Mr Prior for the plaintiff. Judgment for the plaintiff by default for the amount claimed, with costs Bs, solicitor's fee 21s. The Court then adjourned.