MAGISTERIAL

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2178, 6 September 1907, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 5. (Before Air. AV. A. Barton, S.M.) ■ Drunkenness. —A first offender was brought up, his lapse costing him a fine of ss, with 2s coste. CIAHL CASES. Miscellaneous. —Judgment for plaintiff by default was given in the case, AV. J. Cox (Mr. Bright) v. St. Lawrence Toner and Rita Toner, claim £7, costs £1 Is 6d; judgment to be against tho wife’s soparato estate. In the matter Charles Ryan (Mr. Mann) v. James AVilson, claim £2O, the claim was withdrawn, and £1 Is costs allowed to defendant.

Judgment Summonses. —In tho judgment summons case, AA’illiams and Kettlo (Mr. R. Nolan) v. T. Porter, claim £l4 12s lOd, defendant was ordered to pay £3 per month, or in default 15 days’ imprisonment. _ In A. H. Gillman (Mr. Blair) v. Nepia Teliarahau, claim £6 8s 6d, an order was made for payment by instalments;,in default, seven days’ imprisonment.

Disputo over Plans.—Josiali Plietliean, builder, sued Richard McCarthy, for balances of moneys alleged to bo due on a contract, £4O, and extras, £l9 10s, on a dwelling-house at Wae-renga-a-hika. Mr. 'l'. Alston Coleman appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Pi nil for the defendant.—Mr. Finn explained that ho was in a peculiar position. The defendant desired to avoid litigation, but when the work was completed plaintiff took tho key away and refused to allow defendant into the premises. Later on he had given up the 'key, but refused to lot tho architects have the plans and specifications in order to inspect the building, saying that the plans and specifications could be seen at Mr. Coleman’s office. Tho position was that defendant was willing to pay the claim the moment he was satisfied the work had been done, 13'ut ho did not consider he should pay otherwise. Counsel read correspondence that had passed on the matter.—Tho Magistrate said -it was a question whether Mr. Finn’s witnesses were not entitled to see tho plans and specifications.—Mr. Finn gave the assurance that it the house was substantially built, according to specifications, there would be ho difficulty, and the matter would not be likely to come before the Court.—Mr. Coleman said he had received a letter from Mr. Finn at 12.30 on Saturday, and that being a short day he had replied to it the first thing on Monday morning, stating that tho plans could be inspected at Messrs Chrisp and Coleman’s office during certain hours. It was the custom, he added, for plans to remain the property of the contractor until the work was completed-—Tho Magistrate; Then you have not refused to lot Mr. Finn’s witnesses see them?— Mr. Coleman : No.—Mr. Finn said he had stated lie received the letter referred to.—Tlio S.M. (to Mr. Coleman) : You ’refuse to part with the plans?—Mr. Coleman: Yes. They can make a dozen collies if they like. INlv client informed me that at one of the interviews Mr. Finn went carefully through the specifications and appeared to compare them with a copy in his own possession.—Mr. Finn said this was not a fact.—On. tho S.M. pointing out that the plans could be seen. Mr. Finn said he had been told by the architects that tho defendant was entitled to the plans.—The ‘Magistrate: I am not going to decide that question. I would want authorities quoted to show- I had power to order the plans being handed over, before making any such order.—Mr. Coleman said he would agree to an adjournment if the plaintiff was allowed the costs of the day.—Mr. Finn said defendant did not know his position now-. The contract was for £395 as agreed to, and now the claim was on a total of £440. He thought defendant entitled to an adjournment without costs.—The S.M. _ said that opportunity having been given to inspect tlio plans, ho could only allow tho adjournment on condition that defendant paid the costs of half a day to four witnesses £1 and solicitor’s lee £1 Is.—An adjournment for a week -was agreed to.