UNKNOWN

Feilding Star, Volume XVI, Issue 11, 13 July 1894, Page 2

UNKNOWN

— ~ — ♦— — — THUMDAY, Jij > 12 iX. (Before Mr Brabant, S.M ) J. Warburton v. J. Ran son and Son ; claim £33 10s. Mr Richmond for plaintiff and Mr Sandilandsfor defendants. Defendant paid JBS into court (including £2 costs) and put in a counter claim for the remainder. :.-:'i ■--. J. Warburton deposed : Had deal-- ' ings with defendants, from whom he '« purchased store goods ; there was still an account owing, but disputed certain items; at the time the Roods were purchased was working at Pakihifeiira and Ranson packed the goods (in.; commenced cutting wood, at 6s a cord, for defendants on March 23rd ; it was arranged between witness and defendant that deductions were to be made from the payments in satisfa<> ; tion of the amount due to defendants | by witness ; witness employed a man named Smith at 7s a day to work with him j had disputes with Ranson as to the amount witness shouldx receive; ■ by April 10th h- had cut wood to the V value of £10 ; no objection was raised, by defendant until witness went for • the amount then due j an agreement was drawn up for a second contract, • witness agreeing to cot 100 cords at 6s per cord, and deductions were to be made from each payment so. that at , the end of the contract the account for store goods would be paid up '■$*?■■ [the agreement, signed by witnessiand i Ranson, was produced] ; had stacked 95 cords and there were fully half a dozen cords lying about ; this was '■'** equivalent to 100 cords stacked wood; 4 on July 2nd. Ranson sent a man to measure the wood, and they fonnd 76 J cords stacked still on the ground ; this was after Bear hadv carted fifteen, loads away ; there was at leant a cord on each load j was owing £Unson £8 when the agreement was entered into. ; ■ Cross-examined: Contracted anacv count with Ranson (amounting to - £16) previous to cutting wood ,• this ; contract was given to enable witaess / to work out the debt ; paid £8 in" each yh the first contract was a verbal one ; wanted some money from Hanson to enable witness to pay Smith, this was •■'■ after 33£ cords had been cut ; the Brat contract was commenced on March ' 23rd, and the second on April lOibh 1 did not remember if Bear, went'iomeasure the wood. 1,,. * Re-examined : The alteration in the agreement of the word "split" to, " stack " was made without witness' knowledge; considered he had a claim for damages on the first contract ; the first time he saw the account (£l7 2a 2d) detailed wa3 yesterday. By the Bench : On July 2ndj Oark i was sent to measure the wood, and found there were 76 cords stacked'; did not measure the unstacked yfood ; gave up the work on June 14th. , t? ; Walter William Smith deposed : .- Worked with plaintiff at splitting wood; on March 21st plaintiff saw Ranson, in witness' presence, about the contract; did not care to go on with the work till he knew his wages was right; had been paid his Wages (£4 lls) ; (witness gave evidence in corroboration of previous witness). Cross-examined : It was arranged between plaintiff and defendant that an amount was to be paid each week. By the Bench : Did not keep tally of the wood cut ; had. no idea of the quantity carted away by Bear. For the defence Mr Pandihroda called - " > Peter Baer, who deposed : He liad / been employed by Messrs Bauson to cart firewood at 1/9 per cord ; the wood •: was cut by plaintiff ; took fifteen loads I away, and was quite certain he had ■ not taken more than 15 cords. -• '- James W. Bauson deposed : la Do- •' cember last Warburton and Smith had a contract from Mr England; they procured stores from witness while working on this contract ;iiad received £8 off this account and witness offered to give him a contract at wood cutting ; in March last plaintiff returned to Waituna and asked for work; gaye him work at repairing fences fora ifew dajrs tften f§| him at wood cutting; refused to have t. anything to do with Smith, as he wanted plaintiff to work out the ac- ~ count; about the beginning of April wrote out an agreement, to the effect that 100 cords was to be cut and stacked ; had nothing to gain by making the alteration as the wood had. to be stacked before it could be measured; the first contract of 100 cords was not completed because witness had no guarantee that he would be , paid for his stores ; there was no arrangement as to how payments were to be made to plaintiff ; had not stopped plaintiff from cutting wood and would have taken the lQQ cores' if cut; £37 10s 5d was the amount of plaintiff's indebtedness to witness; gave plaintiff credit for £38 16s6d; told plaintiff he would have to stack „ the wood, plaintiff refused to stack the wood because he had not, been paid the amount a?ked fprby w*tn.eee. Cross examined ; The contract was not finished until the wood wm stacked ; told plaintiff that if he employed Smith they could cut 100 oorda presiding witness had security for the goods supplied. His Worship, in summing up the evidence, said that this was a ease in which James Warburton sued Messrs Hanson and Son for the sum of £33 10s. The claim was for laho? aid J! "' ; contract and damages alleged* by a breach of fconforact on the" pa,Tt *of "d*»: fondants. It appears plaintiff obtained; stores from defendants while working for England. Defendants received £& s : in cash froju. plaintiff on account bra debt stated tp '-fee about £15 or $iy It was arranged that plaintiff should cut IQO cords of firewood of which, h.O cut ffi\. He then hac| a disajprtement, an4n»w wishes t« claim 4*9 95 8a »■ damages i ox a breach of agreement of the first contract. A second agreement was entered into, under which plaintiff ; states 66 cords had been cut and defend* ; ants 58. Defendant paid £1 6s 8a into court above what he alleged is due. Plaintiff could have no claim for damages on the first contract a$ h.e bad e*n, teved iuto a second agreement Vn^ioai r li^kfog pr^visio|i^sflchd^magesl aptjpn clearly arose tfcrcmgh; pfetftf trying to evade paying for the store goods. The amonut paid xmLo court. with- • 15s disputed in the bill, was sufficient" for plaintiff's claim. Judgment was given accordingly with costs ss. The Court then adjourned. r