Feilding R.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume XIV, Issue 124, 8 April 1893, Page 3

Feilding R.M. Court

Thursday, Aran. 6tii. (Before Mr. Brabant, R.M.) The following cases were decided after we went to press on Thursday afternoon last : — J. J. Bryce v W. Theobald ; claim £14 for failure on the part of the defendant to carry out a hushfalliug contract in October last. Mr Richmond for the plaintiff, and Mr Sandilands for the defendant. The plaintiff, in his evidence, stated that the defendant undertook to fall about 20 acres of bush for him in tho Marshall township, and iv consequence of the agreement not being carrried out, plaintiff uowjsought to obtain damages as set out in the statement of claim. The plaintiff was examined and cross-examined at groat length us to tbe nature of his claim. The defendant in his evidence stated that the reason for his throwing up the job, was because the work he was asked to go on with, was not the part of the bush he originally undortook to fell, and that it was impossible to do the felling oti this latter bush at the price b© contracted to do tho other for, as it was a much heavier pieco of bush. After hearing couusol, his Worship, in delivering judgment, said it does not uppear very clear why the defendant gave up the contract, but the men in his employ ceased working on tho Job because they could not mako sufficient wages. The defendant 19 bound by the terms of bis contract in tbe same way as iho pluiutiff, nnd tho hitter is entitled to some allowance for tho loss he had sustained owing to the nou fulfilment of the contract. Judgment would bo for plaintiff for the sum of £a with costs of court 425, solicitors fee 21s. E. Eyeriss v W. Ridloy ; claim £4 4s. Mr Prior for tho plaintiff. The claim was for tho rent of a house situated in Hal - combe. Judgment would bo for tho amount claimed, with V2a costs ol court and solicitors fee 21s. Fourteen days allowed to pay the amount in. R Richmond v li. N. Wood ; claim ±4 10a for work done. Mr Sandilands for the plaintiff. The defendant stated he was acting as Manager for Mrs Dunn on her property at Kiwitea, and ho did not authorize George Richardson to employ any labour on the property. The eatato has stneo beeu wound up and distributed, aud if the sum wero to be paid ii would haye to come ont of bis (defendant's) pocket. George Richardsou deposed that he eu« gaged his brother to work on tho estate, and he cent in tho account to Mr Wood. The defendant denied ever receiving tho account. . Uis Worship said on tho evidence before him ho could uot giver a voidict for the plaintiff, who would be nonsuited. Mr Sandilands said tho money was certainly duo to tho plaintiff, and he should sue Mrs Dunn. H. Bilderbeck v U. J. Galway ; claim £34 10s for building a house at Pemberton. Mr Sandilands for the plaintiff, and Mr Reade for the defendant. The plaintiff deposed that in accordance with instructions received from Mr Galway. ho drew the plana of a hotel for him at Pemberton, which was t> cost from £400 to £500, and tho house was built ou these plans. Cross exaimnel ; Galway did not guarantee the payment of the workmen's wages. A man ranaed Smith was engaged there, and the plaintiff had paid £7 on account of various bills duo by Smith. Between £40 and £50 worth of material was put into the building, and about £30 worth of labour, up to Ihe time the Hotel was taken over by Dwun BrosJ. D. Valentine deposed that 2] per cent commission on tho plan produced would be a reasonable charge for supervising tho job. tie would expeot 13s or 14s a day for going so far cut as Pemberton to look after tho men employed there. W. D. Nicholas, and William Heald wore also called by the plaintiff, and their evidence corroborated that of tho former witness. Mr Beade asserted that the plaintiff was amply remunerated for all he had done on the job, by the sum of £10, which had already been paid to him. The defendant Galway deposed that the plaintiff offered to draw the plans of tho Hotel, and to superviso tho work duriug the erection of tho building. The material and workmen wero to be supplied by witness, who never authorised Bilderbeck to engage Smith and Dickinson. Witness did not agree to pay Bilderbeck 12s a day for supervision. Sidney Smith was called for the defence and stated tbe terms of his engagement with Mr Galway, After hearing cotjnsel for both parties, His Worship deliyered judgment in the following terms : — Tbe evidence adduced by tbe plaintiff showed that be would be entitled to payment for his supervision of the work both on tine and wet days at 12s per day. Plaintiff would be allowed for 30 days at 12s, equal to £18, plan of the building 21s, carpenters labour paid out of his pocket £9 IBs 3d, coach fare to Pemberton and back £1, nails paid for 6s 9d, making in all £30 4s. The sum of £10 had already been paid by Galway to the plaintiff, and judgment would bo for the balance of £20 4s, with 39s costs. 30s witnesses expenses, and solicitor's fee £2 2s. This concluded the business, and the Court adjourned.