DISTRICT COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2520, 6 May 1882, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

ASHBURTON. Friday, May 5. [Before His Honor Judge Ward.] NELSON AND COUTTB T W. DE B. COMPTON. This was a claim for £2OO, balance of contract due for the erection of a horse bazaar at Methvon. Mr G. D. Branson for plaintiff ; Mr Garrick, in tho absence of Mr Holmes, for defendant. The defendant contended that the materials used in the building were of an inferior quality, and the work had been badly constructed. S. B. Nelson, one of the plaintiffs, stated that it was arranged with Oompton to erect a building similar to tho horse bazaar in Ashburton for tho sum of £SOO. No plans had been prepared, nor were there any specifications, Oompton saying that he had £SOO to spend on the building, and so long as £SOO was put into it ho would be satisfied. The material was the best that could bo procured in the district. Witness produced accounts to show that the cost of labor and material used in tho building amounted to more than the contract price, £3OO of which had already been paid. After paying the £3OO Compton said he had sent Mr Bruce up to see the work, and when ho got Mr Bruce’s certificate he would pay another £l5O, leaving the balance to stand over. Several witnesses testified to the good quality of the workmanship and material used in the building. Mr Garrick called Mr Searell, of Christchurch, for tho defence. This witness stated that he had examined the building and found the workmanship very detective, and it would cost at least £7O to have the building properly completed. Tho chimney had been built on a foundation of loose shingle, boxed in with boards, and when these boards rotted or were eaten away the chimney would tumble down. Besides this there were many other defects in the construction of the building generally. Mr Scrimshaw, builder of Methven, corroborated the statement made by the last witness with regard to the foundation of the chimney. His Honor said that the evidence given was sufficient to show that the chimney at least hud not been properly constructed, and ho should give judgment for £l5O, without costs.

MORAN AND OTHESS V PATTON. This was a claim for £174, a balance alleged to be due on a contract for stooking, stacking and carting grain grown on defendant's land at Methvon.

Mr Wilding for plaintiff, and Mr Garrick for defendant, A set off that was allowed reduced the claim to £154- 7s 6J.

James Quinn stated that he and others had agreed to harvest the whole of Patton’s orops, = including stocking and stacking, at 4) 6d per acc, defendant to cut the crops, and plaintiffs to keep up wiih the machines. M. Moran, another of the plai tiff., gave evidence as to the way in which the work was done, and the number of acres harvested, and also’stated that when they went fe r a settlement with Patton he (defendant) wanted the carting reduced to 2s per acre. Plaintiffs objected, and offered to refer tho matter to arbitration. Defendant would not agree to this, and said if plaintiffs would not reduce the price they could go. At this time there were 200 acres still to harvest. Several other witnesses who had been working in partnership with plaintiffs gar corroborative evidence.

His Honor gave a verdict for plaintiffs for £l4llos, inclusive of £llO paid into court,