DISTRICT COURT.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 18, Issue 1166, 8 November 1871, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 18 71. [Before his Honor Singleton Rochfort, Esq., District Judge.] Peters and Dyer v. Thompson and Hobbs. —Claim, £200; for breach of agreement. Mr. Lee appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr. Stedman for defendants. Mr. Lee, having addressed the Court, called Mr. A. Peters, who, being sworn, deposed : I am a partner in the firm of Peters and Dyer, coach proprietors, of Napier. I recognise the agreement produced. I had two lines of coaches running at the time of signing the agreement. Que running daily to Waipukurau, starting from Napier at 8 o'clock in the morning, grid a, return coach left Waipukurau every morning at seven. We have also an express, running daily to Havelock:. The Havelock express ceased running on the 27th September, in terms of the agreement, and has not run since. At the time this agreement was ma 'e, the defendants were running an opposition coach. It was agreed that on the 26th of September, Thompson and Hobbs were to have the Havelock express line, and that Thompson, was to be in my employ, and that fur \m services be was to receive £is per week. The regular fare to Waipukurau was 10s. before the defendants commenced to run in opposition. It was afterwards reduced to 55., 2s. 6d., and Is. I was astonished to see Thompson, the morning the agreement was to take effect, posting placards, stating that the fare was reduced to Is. The defendants run their coaches every other day. On the days they do not run I get 10s. from passengers as fares; the average number of passengers is 16. I have had the mail contract for the last 4 years. This yea? the defendants have obtained it. My tender was £5. Their tender was £l. In consequence of losing the tender fop the mails, I shall also lose the subsidy of £IOO voted by the Provincial Council, and shall have to pay the toll at Tareha's Bridge, which will amount to 3s per day. The coach carrying the mails passes the toll-gate free. Both of the defendants were in my employ about two month' before the agreement was signed. The business does not at present pay. It used previously to pay well. I estimate the Joss at £2OQ. Cross-examined by Mr. Stedman :—Tim defendants never came to my office on a Tuesday evening. I never spoke to tbetn the day the agreement was to come into force. I never made an offer to them directly, but I did through another party. Re-examined by Mr. Lee : —There is a good deal of parcel traffic which they take. They have also reduced the price on par: eels. By the Qourt; —I was the first l«i advertise a reduction in the fares by the coach. Sydney Lee Dyer, being sworn, deposed :—I a m one of the plaintiffs in this, action. Three months previous to the opposition coaches running, I wa§ driving for Mr. Peters. The defendants, commenced running coaches on Augus.t 22, The defendants were in the employ of a».& Peters when I entered into partnership, with him. The business then paid. I put £2OO cash iqto the business. I have noi earned wageq since the opposition com-, menoed to ruu,

Oross-examined by Mr. Stedman : There has been a talk of buying Mr. Pet ers out. [Mr. Stedman here put in a letter signed by the witness, and addressed to the defendants, on the subject of buying the plaintiffs out.] The defendants had said to him that there was no legal agreement .. —what had been signed was merely a .memorandum. Peter Bourke, being sworn, deposed:lam Chief Postmaster. Tenders tor conveying the mails for 1872 have been received by me from both plaintiffs and defendants. The tender of the defendants has been accepted by the (government, it bring the lowest. The plaintiffs' tender was £5, while the defendants' was only £i. I j believe that the tender of the plaintiffs was received on the 30th September. Last year, Mr. Peters' tender was £IOO. J. Thompson, being sworn, deposed :—I am one of the defendants in this action. I remember the 2.6 th September. On that day my partner and myself went to Mr. Peters' office at Napier, to get our copies of the agreement. Mr. Peters said he should not stand to his agreement, and that he was agreeable to sell out to us or run us off. I was willing to carry out our portion of the agreement. We were then driving for ourselves. In consequence of Mr. Peters refusing to carry out the agre -ment entered into between us on the 21-t, we were obliged to continue running the coach ao as to obtain our living. I got a letter from Mr. Lee's office, dated the 29th September, calling on us to fulfil our agreement. One of my reasons for leaving Mr. Peters' employment was that I did not care to be under two masters. Before the 21st September negotiations were going on for our purchasing the business from Peters and Dyer. When H r. Peters refused to carry .out the agreement, we believed he was only waiting until the time had passed for tendering for the mail contract. Cross-examined by Mr. Stedman :—lf Mr. Peters had carried out his portion of the agreement, we would have carried out purs. Cross-examined by Mr. Lee: —I looked upon Mr. Peters' refusal as a breach of the agreement. I had placards printed at the Ukhald office on the night of the 25th inat. in preparation, as I had been told that Mr. Peters would not carry out his agreement. On the morning of the 26th, I saw Mr. Peters in his coach. I was at the Post-office at the time in one of our coaches. G. Hobbs, being sworn, deposed:—l went to Mr. Peters' office on Tuesday the 25th Sept., with Thompson. We went there by appointment to meet Messrs. Peters and Dyer, and Mr. Lee's clerk. When we arrived at Mr. Peters' office he was standing at the door, and in reply to Mr. Thompson he said, he did not know avhat we wanted with the documents. My partner said he would not start to work without the agreement. Air. Peters said he would not stand to the agreement, it was a mere memorandum. He would not agree to the terms, but he would sell out: to us, or run us off. We replied we would stick to the agreement, or we would see who would stop on the rOad the longest. Cross-ex.atnuiod by Mr. Lee : —I never saw a copy of the agreement. Mr. Dyer did come to our place on the 27th September, but if he had the agreement it was in his pocket. Gr. Ashley, being sworn, deposed :—I am a clerk to Mr. Lee. I have the original agreement in my possession ever since the 21st September. Mr. Dyer obtain, ed a copy of it for the purpose of giving it to the defendants. It has since been returned $o me. Mr. Dyer being recalled, stated ; —I took a copy of the agreement on the 27th to the defendant?, but they refused to have anything to do with it. Mr. Stedman pleaded that his clients were willing to carry out their ngreemcnt, but that the plaintiffs were not ; th»y had therefore no cause of action. Mr. Lee urged that his clients had been very badly treated by the defendants, and that they had shewn that in consequence of" the course taken by the defendants, they had suffered considerable loss. His Honor reserved his decision until Thursday next, at 11 a.m.