MAGISTERIAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2234, 4 July 1908, Page 1

MAGISTERIAL.

'. '■: ■ ;i.. A. • Barton’,- S.M.). :Vi-..;.'.sVii. V r: ' ■■■ . . 0.1. A) V.' I’.OH EXTRAS. : ' - J..' Coleman) sued ‘Ai.- j'l., .Stock) for £74: , i'7«*lkl!tor .e-iia;*B.;iKuin>lio(l’on twocon--'tratts^••fd.is'-iJipt'iiig houses. under the ‘.direotion „J., Browpleo; was interested in two- 'tho enlarging and houses for defends lit under-M&H. 4- Brownleo,-ur-.chit-eet: to supply was set out'in .'tlieS>riginal tender. The ..work>! ":aV done', but Olr Brownled hadhtffcuhphiinwl as-to the .■ Wa iiLvl'u-y'. ,:<3et>aTjTfeyl by :a. Mr. -Brown .and-,owned byl.feEemlant: • T)io complaint ifiw'u’C.eM&'d' .seven days after Iho work \vits':fpisl)ed. Me. inspected fho job and fiyjfvlttMr •Btiaohaii: • he' -would for extra, .work. .Mr.' if " he. Hiviiiglil Messrs OhainboratSiiul, Keam bvt'i’o in a sound' forwards agreed'tffji.t all extras should to informed.'Mr Brhwnlee of dhnVtarraiigeinent. Me hM<lv- jihit..Tdvjworld a ! p* hfO?44V'i^^^ ; iHoA\ : as' , feivon-an orf.’deT on thei Now Zealand Loan and Mereal'itile Agency Company, 'Ltd., but payment of tho order, was slop-' ped, the. reason given being that he already.had a payment of £lO on account- of, extras. To Mr Stock: Tho payment of £4O was for other work than that since charged for. Ho did not agreo to. a. deduction of Co from the amount of the contract at Mr Brown's house. No items sued for were included inthe contract with Messrs Chambers and Keam. Elijah Atkinson, foreman painter for plaintiff, said he visited tho house occupied by Air Brown. He saw Air St radian, who said lfo had no fault to find with the work on the outside of the house; but asked if the work done,inside was a. first-class job. Witness answered ‘-‘No,” and told him it- was an ordinary job, and very £o<xl considering all things. Defendant examined tho house • all over, and made many complaints, but added he was perfectly satisfied with .the job, until .IAIr Brownlee pointed out thelittlo .faults. Ho told witness to see Mr',Brownlee and tell hint that whatever.arrangements were made ho would bo satisfied, Air .Brownlee afterwards told him Air Strachan was not satisfied with the job. George Gray, n. painter, said ho was working for Air Tustin oh the AVaimata job. At Mr Strachan’s request ho remedied one defect in the work- and Mr Strachan then said he was perfectly satisfied with the job. Henry Marker, another painter employer by. .plaintiff on the job, said the work was well done.

Peter Keam, tho principal contractor, for r the job, said that lie could not say whether any of tho items claimed for were included in tho original contract, For tho. defence, Mr. Stock held that/ijho bankrupt estate of Chambers ‘and Keam was liable for the amount, and. not defendant.

Herbert John Brownlee said he was architect for the erection and renovation of some houses for Air. Strachan. Air., TustinAwas one of the contractors. The work was not oempioted by plaintiff according to his contract. Ho saw Air. Tustin about tho job, and. offered to give him a certificate if'lie would allow a set-off; Air. Tus-, tin'’suggested he. should make a reduction of £4 on account of the work; being improperlv'ddne. Witness sug-, gested. a reduction or£o,-napjl,pki n-’ tiff'agreed. The order given lir £sl on the' X.Z. Loan and Mercantile Agency Co/, Ltd., was for the extra work done hv Air. Tustin. but was stopped because £-10 bad been paid old account. Plaintiff said the £4O was paid for other work. Ho never told Air. Tustin that Mr. Strachan would be responsible for the extras. Tho'defendant; sworn, si id be saw defendant’s foreman on the job and told him the work was a botch. Ho told him to toll Air. Brownlee that he (witness) would agree to whatever was right. He stopped the order for £sl because £4O of the amount lnd alreidy been received. Ho noyer promised’ to pay for extras done on tho job, and plaintiff’s stalointiffi to that effect was a tissue of lies.

William Oswald Skeet, builder, said he saw tho work done by,-plaintiff, and regarded it as unsatisfactory. Air. Stock, in addressing the Bench, said the evidence had shown that defendant was not liable for the amount, and his evidence had not been shaken. _ If there was anf 'claim it was against the-estate of-Chambers and Keam. Plaintiff was/ trying to get by a side win'd which /he whs not entitled to: _ ’ -Air. Coleman said that he would not say the witnesses for the defence were telling lies, but would politely say they were mistaken. Air. Brownlee’s memory was most convenient; he could forget and remember just as suited llim. The .fact remained that the work was not done and not paid for. If anyone was liable it was defendant. His "Worship reserved judgment.

CLAIM FOIL CARTING SAND. The case of Gordon Brothers (Air. Bright) v.' Black Brothers (Mr. C'olpman) was then proceeded with. Walter Black, one of the defendants, said he entered into contract with plaintiffs to cart goods to Dr. Cole's placo at AVliangara. Sami was not. included in the list of goods to be carted. The price agreed upon was £65, but plaintiff' was to allow a rebate of £2 and receive ,(J6H. Some time afterwards James Gordon paid lie had not allowed for icarting the sand, and asked witness if. Dr. Colewould pay the extra cost. Dr. Cole refused. ' AVitnpss told plaintiff’s the answer. Plaintiffs then* tsld witness thev would cart the sand for nothing. Allen Black gave similar evidence. His Worship said carting sand was not included in the contract, and gave judgment for plaintiffs, with costs £2 4s.