BUSHFELLING CASE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXII, Issue 1763, 1 June 1906, Page 2

BUSHFELLING CASE.

At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday* Wm. Burton, a contractor (Mr Bright)’ sued Wm. AtvyiH.Spurrell, of Wharekopae for £BO-7s lid, the amount of a bushfelling oontraot. Wm. BurtOD, plaintiff, stated he entered into a contraot for buehfelling with defendant in June, 1904. The terms were 278 per acre, and defendant was to pack the stores into the camp. The area was 99 acres, and the contract was completed, and passed by defendant’s manager. Witness had a re survey made, which made the area 104 aores, and witness sued for this amount. There were oertain credits to ba made, but defendant had refused to render them. Cross-examined by defendant, witness stated that his solicitor had written to k defendant’s manager. Witness bad to out out his Beotion, but it was optional whether ho took up the eeoond section! Defendant agreed to pack all stores. F. J Honan, surveyor, stated that ho made a re-survey of the eeotion. There were 104 aores. Oroes'exsmined by defendant, witness said he was aware that the section had been surveyed previously. The bush had been felled when he made the survey. He found that a small error had been made in the previous survey, which made the difference in area. Defendant deposed that the oontraot was let to plaintiff in May in two sootions, one of 99 acres end the other 184. Witnses was proceeding to read from a written statement, but his Worship said that this oould not be'taken as evidenos, although witness oould refresh his memory from dates taken at the time. Witness said the oontraot was let at 27s an sore. Two months prior the plaintiff had takpq the two sections, and had puli men on. Plaintiff wanted more for the wotk, and being refused said be would not go on * with it. In regard to the contract in dispute witnees was to pack all Bjprcs from MoCutcban’s, a distance of eight miles. Plaintiff was to pay coat price of all stores, and pay oartage from town to McCutchan’e, Witnees did not-know bow muoh baßh plaintiff felled on the 184 or 99.

His Worship : Plaintiff says he h>(B felled 104 acres. The second survey was supported by evidenoe, and must be tiksn in preference to an unsupported plan. Witness stated that in order to get avi? d nor, be would ask for an adjournment, He claimed no further credits from plaintiff.

His Worship said that had defendant employed a solicitor it would have saved the Court muoh time. I Witness: Is it because lam not a solicitor that I am not allowed to speak ? His Worship : No, but it is a pity you I did not consult a solicitor. I Witness stated that he Had no more I evidence to call that day, as the other witnesses were not available. He asked for an adjournment-. llis Worship said lie would not grant an adjournment- There had been too much dalay already. He gave judgment for plaintiff for amount of claim, £BO 7s lid, Court costs £3, entering plaint £l, plaintiffs expenses £2, witness £2 10s, solicitor’s fees £4 Is. Execution would be delayed for 14 days to give defendant time to make his counter claim for credits against plaintiff.

Mr Bright said if defendant eamc to him and showed that the goods had been '"S supplied there would be no trouble. All | liis client wanted was proof. His Worship said the 14 days’ stay of execution would give defendant time to bring his counter claim in proper form. I lie recommended defendant to go to a solicitor.

Defendant: Can I appeal ? Am I allowed to do that? His Worship: I have nothing more to say to you.