MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

King Country Chronicle, Volume VI, Issue 434, 27 January 1912, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

- TE KUITI—THURSDAY

Before Mr F. O'B. Loughnan, S.M., and Mr C. Cornish, J.P.

A first offender wag charged with being found drunk in a railway cariage. He fined 5s and 7s costs.

LICENSING CASES

T. Day was charged with bringing four bottles of whisky into the King Country and having failed to inform the vcndur that ha '."/ as taking the liquor intu a prohibited area. He was fined 5s costs 7s.

Buxton and Agnew (Auckland) were chaged with failing to supply the clerk of the court with a notice of liquor sent into the King Country. The notice was sent to the wrong court. It being the second ofl'ence a fine of 10s and costs 73 was imposed. W. J. Condor (Mr Finlay) was charged with failing to supply the clerk of the court with the name of the person by whom the liquor was ordered. A plea of guilty was entered, and a fine of Is and costs was ordered. Messrs T. H. Nixon, Level and Sons, A. J- Viddel, Abraham and Williams were fined similar amounts for technical breaches. M. J. Do'nerty was charged wiih having acted on behalf of another person in the procuring of liquor for him and with failing to inform the vendor of the liquor going into a prohibited area. He was fined 5s and costs 7s.

Mrs Moriarty (Mr J. B. Sharpies) entered a plea of guilty on two charges of having failed to supply the clerk of the court with the names and addresses of the person ordering. It being the second offence a fine of 10s and costs 7s on each charge was inflicted.

J. Bonner (Mr Finiay) on a similar charge was fined a like amount. G. P. Barclay was charged with having brought liquor "into the King Country unla'oelled, and for haivng failed to inform the vendor that the liquor was for a prohibited area, and supplying a native. Accused did not put in an appearance and was fined £5, cost 7s on the first charge convicted and fined Is and costs 7s on the second charge, on the count of supplying a native the case was dismissed. A FENCING CASE.

Thomas Tatham, labourer, Ohura, sued R. Wille, farmer, for £47 0s 6d, for fencing and casual labour., Mr G. P. Finlay Appeared for plaintiff and Mr J. B. Sharpies for defendant.

Thomas Tatham, plaintiff, deposed that he had called on defendant in company with Isaac Samuels, in connection with fencing. Defendant and witness inspected the first line which was partly cleared, and agreed to put the fence up for lis per chain. The second line was inspected and about half way along the line there was a papa bluff. Defendant guaranteed no papa less than two feet from the surface, if so he would pay extra. Witness then agreed to clear the line, erect the fence for 15s defendant to supply all materials. Samuels accompanied thetn, and heard all the conversation. Before returning defendant asked witness what he would charge per day for casual work to which he replied 10s for eight hours. About a week afterwards wont to Mr Wille's place with two other men to start work. On the Saturday after work was commenced defendant brought the specifications along which vveie signed a few days afterwards. Assisted to muster sheep on Sunday. The reason that it came about that witness and his mates were splitting battens was that defendant, who had had totara posts ready but on account of him thinking of selling that section he wanted rimu or matai posts split with the idea of carting the totara posts on to his own section. The price arranged was 25s per 100 for posts, and 6s per 1($0 for battens at the stump. After the first eight chains of fencing was finished defendant expressed satisfaction. During the erection of the next eight chains the work wa3 done under defendant's supervision. For the next seven chains Mr Wille only brought half as many battens as was required to finish and when witness asked him why he had not brought the battens along he said they wanted dressing. Witness went on to the second line and all the posts that were brought that day were put in. After that day defendant did not come to bring any posts until the next afternoon. Witness informed Mr Willie that they were going away for three days, and asked him to get the posts on to the line. When they returned defendant had only carted one sledge load, and was bringing the second. Witness decided to give the contract up because he had another contract to go to, the contract time had expired, and witness had failed to supply them with material.

By Mr Sharpies: The only money paid by the defendant to witness was £9. Defendant had never at any time complained tlit the work was unsatisfactory. All the grub bin;.;' work was done under Mr Wille's supervision as he was mostly with them on the fence line. Defendant had pointed out a heap of battens which he said were inadequate for the work. Witness considered there were enough good battens for the fence. He had been in New Zealand for three years. Witness had been given the guage by defendant, and had marked all the posts where the wires were to go. It was not at witness' request that a manuka rail fence was erected serosa the gully. Be had applied to defendant on two occasions to bring material on to the ground. It was not a fact that practically the whole of the battens split by witness were condemned.

Cross-examined by Mr Finlay: The posts and battens produced in court were not a fair sample of the whole. Evidence was given by Messrs Samuels, Goldfinch and Coe that the work was hampered through insufficient material to erect the fence.

K. Willie, farmer, said that he had twelve years' experience of bush farming, the majority of which were in the Ohura. Witness explained the specifications, and said that he arranged with plaintiff to split posts. It was no fault of witness* that the battens were not carried on to the line. The reason wag that they were unfit to be put on the fence. He complained a couple of times about the battens. On the first two footed posts came up. Excavation work on the inside of the fence was partly done, but on the outside it was totally neglected. The guage was also unsatisfactory. s regards the battens witness had tola plaintiff that he could split a3 many as he liked as long as they were of good sound timber 7 and posts for the requirement of the fence. Witness had received no intimation that plaintiff was going to throw up the contract. On a couple of occasions plaintiff had come to witness' house asking him to bring material on to the line. When plaintiff left the job there were an insufficient quantity of posts to finish the fence. Witness had complained to plaintiff in connection with the inadequacy of the posts and battens supplied. Witness never refused nor neglected to supply material for the completion of the fence By Mr Finlay: Witness when talking with plaintiff before letting the contact admitted that there was three chains of papa and another half chain had since been found and that he would allow a little for papa that would be encountered other than that represented. The section had since been sold.

By the Court: The fence had never been completed, and it was sold as plaintiff left. Witness had to lake an allowance to the purchaser for the unfinished portion.

By Mr Finlay: Witness was away on two occasions during the progress of the contract —once he was away for a week. He never told plaintiff or his men that he would get the timber when it suited him.

By the Court: Witness did not make any effort to settle the matter, not even when he got the notice of claim.

By Mr Finlay: Plaintiff did suggest that if he lent them the horse and sledge they would cart the posts. Plaintiff and liia men had helped him in many little ways. Witness had refused compensation for the papa work. Witness did not supply the contractors with material in anticipation of his going away. They had work to go on with in the splitting of baftens, and need never be idle. Cross-examined by Mr Sharpies: It was shortly after the job started that he went to or two before the contractors left that plaintiff approached witness as regards the papa encountered. His Worship, in giving judgment, went into the various phases of the obligations of both parties, after which the plaintiff agreed to split a certain number of posts and battens. Defendant was to have put the material no a convenient place for the work and he took it that the material was to be put in a place convenient for the workers, and not the employer. The transporting of the material was no part of the workers contract. Everything seemed to go ell until some disputes arose between the parties. Evidence showed that plaintiff had complained several timed about the supplying of the material. Apart from that there was an agreement between the contractor and defendant that he could split battens up to 7000 at 6s per 1000. He was of opinion that the employer did not deliver the material as fast as he should have done and which the plaintfff had complained about. With regard to the claim for lost time his Worship could not allow that as the plaintiff and his men could have been splitting battens. There was a considerable difference of evidence as regards the quality of the posts and battens split by the plaintiff, and it was very difficult to arrive at a true estimate of the facts. Defendant had said in his evidence that he would have judged the posts and battens more leniently before dissention arose than since. The fact of plaintiff going to defendant and asking him to let him have the lend of the horse and sledge to cart the posts threw a bright light on the affair and showed that plaintiff was anxious to get the work done. Plaintiff had suffered considerable delay through the non-deilvery of the material. According to defendant's evidence it was quite clear that the contractor had been promised extra payment for the papa work. After giving credit for £9 paid to plaintiff and wages money paid to Coe and Graham for casual work done, his Worship gave judgment for £24 4s and costs £l7 2s Bd. A NON-SUIT.

C. B. Lever (Mr Hine) v. J. Gleadovv (Mr Finlay), claim £l3 Os 2d. C. B Lever depoged that W. Todd met him in the street and told him he was working for Gleadow and asked him if he could have chaff. He was supplied and at the end of the month witness forwarded the account to Gleadow with a covering letter. He did not receive a reply, and continued to supply Todd until April 12th, when he went elswehere for his supplies. He communicated with Gleadow in September last, after which Gleadow called on witness and told him that he would not see him stuck, and would do what he could when he sold his team which was in the market. The teams were afterwards sold, but defendant then refused payment. J. Gleadow stated that Todd was not working for him but was trading on his own account. Witness had entered into a partnership at the beginning of last year which suddenly terminated, leaving the teams and plant on his hands. He arranged with Todd to take a team over, and make what he could out of it, witness to have a fair share of the profits. The reason that he had ultimately refused to pay was that he found that Todd had pledged his credit at other places in the town.

After hearing the evidence his Worship non-suited plaintiff.

CIVIL CASES. Hawley v. (Mr Hine) v. Rira Moerua, £2 2a Cd, costs 20s 6d; Green and Colebrook (Mr Hine) v. Harvey, £3 5s Id, costs 19s; Hodgson v. HaDua, £2 ss, costs 39s Cd; Williams'and Bruce (Mr Finlay) v. Healey, £23 14s 9d, costs £2 Ms; same v. Moran, £7l ISs 9d, costs £4 5s 6d; Rosenberg (Mr Short) v. Tuheka Hetet, £7 16s 4d, costs 30a; same v. Mahipu Penc, £3 3s 3d, costs 20s 6d; Green and Colebrook (Mr Hine) v. Hale and East, £4O 7s 2d, costs £2 14s; same v. McGee and Co., £2B 4s 3d, costs £2 Ms; same v. Tureiti, £4 12s 9d, costs 12s (nl. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. Green and Colebrook (Mr Hine) v. Tairoa, £lO 2s 7d; order for immediate payment, in default ten days' imprisonment. Same v. Morrow, £1 16s lOd; order for immediate payment, in default seven days' imprisonment. Kapou and Kini v. Wiiaterangi, £9 4s 4d; order for immediate payment, in default ten days' imprisonment.