Feilding R.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume XIV, Issue 65, 19 November 1892, Page 2

Feilding R.M. Court

« . (Before Mr Brabant KM.) The following case was heard after we went to press on Thursday last :— J. W. Titter and E. and \V. Page, r. E. H. Crabb ; claim £59. Mr Hankins appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr Baker for the defendant. Titter's evidence was • heard in Palmerstou last Court day. Edward Lawrence deposed, that he knew the job on which the plaintiffs were engaged for Crabb; witness had to cut the lines which mark the areas to be felled in connection with the bushfelling work ; witness first saw the specifications about three weeks previous to the • work being let to plaintiffs; was instructed to watch them and look after Crabb's interest ; There was a clause in the contract which mentioned that progress payments of 75 per cent were to-be paid on account of work done ; witness gave the plaintiffs an order on Crabb, to draw 75 per cent for about 68 acres of ground, or to pay them in full for 50 acres ; witness wrote Crabb a note, to inform him that he might pay the plaintiffs 75 per cent on -the whole block; this letter has been destroyed by the defend* ant. L'rossezaminedticWitness was notap« :" pointed by Mr Crabb to pass the work, and the plaintiffs wqre aware that it most be passed by Mr Crabb, senr. ; Page offered to give witness a present if the latter would pass the work, which he Baid he could not do, as he had no authority to act ; if the witness had the. passing of the work he should certainly decline .to . do so, as he did not consider it was done satisfactorily. ...... s, •.... ... Re-examined by Mr Hankins; There/ were some men working on an adjoining bush contract of 46 acres for Mr Crabb, and witness advised Crabb to pay them. Crabb, senr. was on the ground fully fifteen times whilst these -young men were at work. The under scrubbing was badly done, and witness told Crabb so some weeks before the contract was finished. By the Bench:' Witness frequently complained to plaintiffs that the underscrubbing was being badly done, Witness did not say in front of the Court House in Palmerston, that the work. would satisfy anyone except Crabb. Edward Page deposed that he and his mates took about 100 acres of bush felling for Crabb and that Lawrence acted as overseer. Tho latter said he could not pass the work, but gave an order on . Crabb for 75 per cent progress payment i on work done.' . ' William Page corroborated his brother's evidence, and stated that the: witness Lawrence did not complain of the work being badly done, until about a week before it was finiphed. ■ J. W. Titter, re-called, swore that Lawrence never complained of the work until a few days before the job was done. ; Mr Baker submitted that anyone's eyibsnee could not be taken as to the value of the work done, because Crabb, senr. was appointed to pass the work. ; His Honor overruled the objection. , ■ Henry McAlister gave evidence aa to the manner in which the work had been done, which was executed in a satisfactory manner according to his opinion. Cross-examined; Witness was about two hours on the ground and travelled : across it, but not the whole width, and witness could not say what area he went over; all the totara was felled up to two feet as far as he could tell. Be-examined by. Mr Hankins: Witness? heard Lawrence say in Palmerston Courtl. House that the work was done sufficiently well to please 99 men out of 100 ; though it might not satisfy Crabb.. „ .-, George Cook gaye evideuce as to the work being done in a satisfactory manner and corroborated MoAlister's evidence as to Lawrence's statement outside Palmers* ton Court House. James Mclntyre corroborated the evidence given by the two previous witnesses respecting the work being done in a satis* factoiy way and also as to Lawrence's statement at Palmerston. Mr Baker asserted that the work Was to be done, subject to approval by a third party acting on behalf of Crabb or his nominee. His Honor over-ruled this contention. Steven Williamson deposed that he has had great experience in biishfelling^ land has examined the word in question ; witness was of opinion that if, the underscrubbing had been done as well as the felling had been done he would hare passed the work as . being satisfactory, but he should have declined to pass the under-scrubbing, as in many cases the ; supplejacks 'were not cut at all; witness considered about 8s an acre ought to .-. be deducted on account of this indifferent r under-scrubbing. - , • , Cross-examined by Mr Hankins; wit-: ness had no idea how much land he inspected; if the men were not doing the work in a proper manner, he would certainly point out the fact to the men working for him. C. P. Bridle gave evidence as to the unsatisfactory way in which the under- . scrubbing was done. [ E. H. Crabb gave evidence as to the nature of the contract. In cross-examin-ation. he admitted having destroyed Lawrence's letter, as he considered it was unimportant. ■ ■ ■ Hugh Crabb deposed that at the time the contract was let to the plaintiffs, it was distinctly stated that witness was to pass the work ; owing to the unsatisfactory way in which tho uuder-ecrubbiog was done he considered it was a loss of £150 to his son ; witness considered that his son could not be satisfied with a de« duction being made from the contract price, but thought the contract ought to be cancelled. Mr Baker argued that the plaintiffs had not carried out the contract according to specifications, and his client was entitled to a verdict. . Mr Hankins argued that because his clients had not carried out one small part of the iob. was no reason why they should not be paid for that labour which they had expended. His Worship arranged to deliver judgment on Wednesday next at Palmereton The Court then adjourned.