A ROAD CONTRACT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XLV, Issue 3983, 16 July 1915, Page 2

A ROAD CONTRACT.

ADJUSTING THE ACCOUNTS

■CLAIM FOR. WAGES NON-SUITED

The attention of Mr R- S. Florance, S.M., was occupied for some time yesterday adjusting accounts between tho parties engaged in a recent-. County Council road contract at Muriwai. Daniel O’Shea (Mr Burnard) proceeded against Septimus Bucktliought (Mr Etheriugton) to recover the sum of £9 for wages. Daniel O’Shea, the plaintiff, said lie was employed to work for defendant. He claimed £9. He had three horses, a dray and a man. Bv Mr Etheriugton: ’Witness was working for three days for Mr Crosswell. ' The contract was for 30s a day. He claimed judgment for three days each from Mr Crosswell and Mr Bucktliought. To Mr Bernard : £9 was due to witness, £4 10,s from Mr Bucktliought and £4 10s from Mr Crosswell. Mr Ktherington said that they were going to prove that the plaintiff had been paid. Denis o’Grady, contractor, said lie knew that O’Shea was working for Bucktliought. Witness paid all tho men on the contract, and paid plaintiff £ll 18s, and the latter went away quite satisfied. 1 He later made a dispute that Bucktliought owed him £4 10s. By Mr Burnard : Witness kept hack from plaintiff all moneys which were on the statement submitted byO'Shea. Septimus Bucktliought said he mado up the statement which plaintiff took to O’Grady. He produced a statement of the hours worked on the eon tract. Witness had paid the plaintiff all that was coining to him. By Mr Burnard : There was a deduction for a. store account on the statement witness gave plaintiff when he settled up. Leonard Crosswell, contractor, said that he was on the contract most of the time. Plaintiff worked three hours for witness, and he paid him at the rate of 30s per day. Witness got all the feed at the camp, and paid an account for £l.l to Common, Shelton and-Co. on plaintiff’s behalf. Mr Etheriugton said he thought they had proved that plaintiff had been paid. On his own admissions 32 hours lie was claiming for ho did not work.

Mr Barnard said that plaintiff was claiming £9, and £1 10s was still duo to him.

His Worship said that plaintiff had gone along, and had had a settlement. Plaintiff would he non-suited, with costs £1 12m. A COUNTER, CLAIM.

Leonard Crosswell, contractor . (Mr Etherington) next claimed from Danioll O’Shea, conrtactor (Mr Burnard) the sum of £l9 Is 9d, made up as follows: To 8 sacks chaff and carting £3 3s 4d, 6i days’ carting at 12s £3 18s, cash lent £l, stores and keep for five weeks and two days (Feb. 1 to March 9) at 17s £4 9s, paid Common, Shelton and Co.’s account for chaff and oats £ll 5s lid; total £23 16s 3d, loss team hire and carting £4 2s Gd and one day’s wages 12, £4 14s Gd. Mr Etherington explained that this was a case arising out of the previous case. Tho item for £4 9s for stores and keep was to be struck out. Leonard'Crosswell, the plaintiff, explained how the items in the statement of claim earno to be incurred. He produced his time book', showing tho various entries. Witness lent defendant £1 cash at the Royal Hotel, and also paid Common, Shelton' and Co. £ll 5s lid on defendant’s behalf. By Mr Burnard: O’Gradv held £l4 of O’Shea’s money, and witness would have no trouble in netting this amount from O’Gradv. Witness had to pay Common, Shelton and Co.’s account as ho (witness) got the chaff for defendant. Witness stood good for defendant’s liorso ffted, and had not been paid for this.

Mr Burnard said the arrangement mado was that tho amounts due by O’Shea should be stopped off the amount coming to him. This had been done, and if judgment, were given against defendant in this caso Jwould mean that lie would have to pay twice, as lie had already paid it to O’Grady. _ r •Mr Etherington said lie would ask for a non-suit. Mr Burnard asked Tor costs. His Worship- granted a non-suit, with costs against plaintiff amounting to £1 Is. '