MAGISTERIAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2044, 22 November 1907, Page 1

MAGISTERIAL.

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21. (Before Mr. AY. A. Barton, S.M.)

Prohibition Ordors.—A prohibition order was issued by consent. Judgment by Default.—Judgment by default was given in the following eases:—Albert Michael (Mr. Sainsbury) v. Wharepapa, £2 17s, costs £2 Is; Alico G. Sherratt, and IV. G. Sherratt (Mr. Nolan) v. Enoch Richards, £32 19s 9d, costs £3 4s. Judgment Summons—A judgment summons was granted Win. Gardner, (Mr. Bright) against Thomas Shaw for tho payment of £8 12s forthwith, in default nine days’ imprisonment. Claim for. Ploughing—Sydney Jones (Mr. Stock) claimed £4 6s from Thomas MacGuiro (Mr. Bright) for work in connection with scooping, ploughing, discing, and sowing a section. —Sydney Jones said 110 had been engaged by dofondant to scoop and level liis section at Makaraka, . Ho was to' bo paid 23s per day.Jor self, two horses and cart, and one man extra at 8s por day. Tliero war,-, no written agreement, but lie had no doubt as to wliat the avrangeiiiolit was.i Had done much similiar work, and 23s was what ho had always been paid for scooping. Would never do tho work for 15s. When payment was demanded defendant refused to pay the extra man. To Mr. Bright: It cost about 5s to keep a horso for a day. Did not tell defendant ho could do tho work for less than £9 10s. Gave defendant a recipt for £l2, which was paid on account. The extra man was engaged by witness and looked to him for payment. Re-examined :Wlien the receipt for £l2 was given witness told defendants that th 9 extra man had still to bo paid.—George Brocklcbanlc, contractor, said bo would ask for 25s and Is an hour for labor for the work dono by plaintiff. By Mr. Bright: Knew tho section in dispute. £l6 was not too high for the woi'k. It was not a high prico considering the work took 10$ days. —Wm. Gordon, carter, said the usual charge for tho work was from 23s Gd to 25s per day, not allowing for labor. By Mr. Bright: Tho scooping would cost flic most.—For tho defence, Thos. MacGuiro, defendant, said lie had arranged with one Dolan to do the work required at £9 10s. Ho failed to take tho job and Jones was engaged. Jones said he would do it for 23s and that with tho help of a man lie could do it in about four days. Nothing was said at tlie time about the extra man’s wages, nor-at tho time when the £l2 was paid. A few days afterwards plaintiff asked witness about the wages and witness said plaintiff could do as 110 liked in the matter. A week later plaintiff said 110 had paid the extra man, and later still made a demand on witness for the amount, witness repudiating liability. By Mr. Stock.— Expected the work to bo dono for 23s por day. Dolan’s price was not merely for scooping, and levelling. Plaintiff worked continuously on the job, which was well done.—Samuel Dolan said he put in his price for exactly tho work dono by plaintiff. By Mr. Stock: —Expected 110 could have done the work in a week. Might want an extra man for about two, days.—His Worship, in summing up, said it was apparent that defendant had misunderstood the arrangement. Judgment would bo for plaintiff for amount claimed (£3- 19s), with costs, £2 13s.