RESERVED JUDGMENTS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XLV, Issue 3980, 13 July 1915, Page 6

RESERVED JUDGMENTS.

Adjudications by mr w. a. f , barton, s.m. The following reserved judgments have been delivered bv Mr W. A. Barton, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court: —- / PLASTERING DISPUTE. / Jack Kane (Mr Burnard) v. James Greig (Mr Bright): Tlio plaintiff cliaims to recover from the defendant, the sum of £4l for balance of account alleged to be due by defendant' to plaintiff for work and labor done and material supplied in connection w'itn plastering and rough casting of defendant’s dwelling-house situated at Wnataupoko. The nlaintiff .says that in 1911 he arranged with the defendant to lathe, and pulp plaster, and finish with hydrated lime the interior of tlie house, and the outside was to lathed, coated with hair mortar, and then rough cast and white-washed.

The parties are in conflict as to whether the job was to. be done by day labojyor at per yard. Defendant admiwMthat at the conclusion of the job pMmitiff gave him a detailed account ‘ df the cost of materia] and labor, stat|Jng at tho time that ho did so to show § what the job had really cost him. ThTs * would have been ouite unnecessary if the defendant’s version of the agreement is correct, namely that tho -work was to bo done at per yard. Defendant admits that plaintiff after the detailed account had been made out and handed to him, that plaintiff continued to rendered it for the same

amount, to which tho defendant apparently did not object, and ho made several payments on account. lam therefore of opinion that the arrangement was as stated by the plaintiff. It is obvious from the evidence that the work is very unsatisfactory; that the plaster is coming away from the wall. The question therefore is whether that is due to the faulty work of the plaintiff. Plaintiff says the chief reason why the rough casting has not stood is, in his opinion, on account ed ice shrinkage of the timber which caused the plaster to, crack and break away. George Smith, a builder and contractor of considerable experience, says he recently examined the house in ciuestion. The plaster in the dining room was left in a rough state ami the arch in the hall was uneyen. It would cost £4 to remedy the deflects. Otherwise the inside plastering was left in fair workmanlike order. On the outside the rough east was loose anTl some was falling away. I found the first coat of very poor quality, the quantities of material being insufficient. The outer coat was of

good material. The undercoat was the cause of the failure. It does not matter bow dry the timber was, there is always a certain amount of shrinkage. He estimates the cost of the whole job if proper material was 'used at £l/30. The plaintiff’s evidence is that he used the quantities of material specified by defendant, and that defendant, who is an architect, was frequently on the job and had full opportunity of seeing how the work was being' done, and made no complaint whatever as to the material or otherwise. lam satisfied from the evidence that the cracking of the piaster was not caused through any fault on the part of the plaintiff. Plaintiff says that he used the quantity of cement specified by the defendant, and no evidence has been given to the contrary. It is clear, however, that there are some defects in the interior of the house, for which I allow tho sum of £B. Judgment will 1>« entered for the plaintiff for the sum of £33, with costs of Court £1 Ids. solicitor’s fees £2 12s. DISPUTE OVER COTTAGES.

Frank Soan (Mr Barnard) v. Thomas Bai (Mr Dawson): The plaintiff claims from the defendant the following chattels, namely, five cottages belonging to the plaintiff, and at present oil the property of one John Briggs Clark, of Matawai. shcepfarmer, of the value of £SO the said cottages having been taken possession of bv the defendant on or about’the 20th day of March,. 1915, and the plaintiff claims possession of the said premises or £SO damages, in case possession cannot be had, and the plaintiff claims the further sum of £35 damages, for the said wrongful possession of the said cottages, and the plaintiff claims the further sum of £ls, being- the value of a horse, collar, chains, and block, belonging to the plaintiff, and converted bv defendant- to his own use. The short facts of this case are as follows: In the rear 1914 plaintiff entered into a contract with defendant and one Henry 11. Richardson to fell, mill and deliver timber at plaintiff’s mill at Matawai. During the currency of the contract defendant and Richardspn built five cottages for the oonvoiiUSnice of themselves and their workiMjfn, employed in connection with the cjpntraet. - They were not built upojf plaintiff’s land, but on the land of Jho J. B. Clark, for which plaintiff lidnl certain timber and tramway ijght-s only. The cottages were notJfiiilt for 'plaintiff, or under his instructions, but were erected by the contractors themselves for their own use. They were built in their own time, and with their own material, with the exception of 7COO feet of timber which belonged to plaintiff, and for which, plaintiff claimed and recovered judgment for in another action in tnis Court in March last. It is quite obvious that at the time of that action that, the present plaintiff did not claim the cottages as has property. The contractors did not dispute their liability to pay for plaintiff’s timber which they used in connection with the cottages. It appears to me to be unreasonable under the circumstances for plaintiff to claim tiie cottages as his property. In reference to the claim for horse, collar, and block, evidence was given in the former action that defendant had sent both to tradesmen for repairs, and that plaintiff could obtain them upon application. Plaintiff lias since endeavored to obtain them, but the tradesmen refuse to hand them oyei till tho amount due for repairs is paid. As the contractors wore bound to keep all articles in good order and condition, 'and having taken them for repairs, are liable to pay the tradesmen’s charges upon' them, which amount to 13s. In reference to the chain, defendant says that it was left on tho ground at the termination of tho contract, and there is no evidence to the contrary. Judgment will therefore he entered for the plaintiff for 13s, without costs, and for defendant in respect of tho balance or the cllaim, with solicitor’s fee £5 IDs and costs £1 7s. '