A CONTRACT DISPUTE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2341, 6 November 1908, Page 3

A CONTRACT DISPUTE.

BUSHFELLERS’ CLAIM AGAINST FARMERS.

A case was taken at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, beforo Mr. .W. A. Barton, S.M., when Edmond Stewart and' J ohn, J allies, and William .Swinton (Mr. H. J. Finn) claimed from Charles Gibson and Hemi Kara .(Mr. H. Bright) the sum of £37 - alleged to have been wrongfully deducted from their contract price for felling 254 acres of bush on Puninga station, at 28s per acre.

Mr. 'Finn stated the circumstances of the case, and called Edward Stewart, who said he remembered entering into a contract with defendants in April for the felling of 254 acres of bush. On going to work, plaintiffs found 30 or 40 acres felled by previous contractors, ft was agreed that defendants were to stop £33 out of the contract money. Henri Kara was overseer, and had onty made ono complaint. On the last day the defendant Gibson went out and said he was not satisfied with the plaintiff’s work. He said it would have to be gone over again, or lie would stop £25, which was done when they came to be paid. Gibson also stopped £l2 for stores, which witness said had been consumed by former contractors. Objection was made at the time by tlie plaintiffs. Cross-examined bv Mr. Bright : Witness said that plaintiffs were charged £3O for stores, which they subsequently found to be only worth £2O. A'il trees had been felled except those dangerous to get at. There had been some discussion with Mr. Gibson, who had subsequently paid them £239 12s Sd. A receipt was givon.Jw the cheque, but objection was taken to the amount withheld. James Swinton and William Swinton also gave similar evidence. Hemi Kara, one of the defendants, said that the work had not been well done, and that he had made complaints on many occasions. Plaintiffs had promised to go back and complete their work, but had nob done so.

John King, farmer, Wharerata, said he occupied the adjoining land, and on Wednesday last made a thorough inspection of the contract bfock in question. He considered the work had been done very badly. He thought the incomplete work worth about £SO or £6O.

Innes Henderson, bushfalling on the adjoining land, said he had inspected the contract block on Wednesday last. He thought the work had-been badly done. Charles Gibson, one of the defendants, detailed the circumstances of the contract-, and said that when lie visited the work he found it in a deplorable state. It had been left incompleted, and witness deducted £25. This was disputed by plaintiffs, but was finally agreed to, and tlie latter left satisfied. To Mr. Finn : Kara had complained to witness that the work was being badly done. Plaintiffs had left after tlie settlement, fully satisfied. Mr. Finn briefly addressed the Court.

Tlie Magistrate said that the receipt shown for tlie money paid was an absolute discharge, and the plaintiffs had nothing to complain of. The work had evidently been very badly done. Plaintiffs would be nonsuited, with costs 6s, solicitor’s fee £2 2s, witness’ expenses £3 18s 9d, and costs of an adjournment £1 Is.