Resident magistrate's Court.

Marlborough Express, Volume III, Issue 147, 5 December 1868, Page 5

Resident magistrate's Court.

BLENHEIM, MONDAY, NOY. 30, 1868.

[Before S. L. Muller, Esq., R.M., His Honor W. H. Eyes, Esq., Superintendent, and J. B. Wemyss, Esq., J.P.]

CIVIL CASES. NORGROVE BROS. V. WALL

This was a case adjourned from last week, for the production of further evidence, wherein the plaintiffs claimed £l2 19s 3d, and a set-off had been filed, for £9 3s. fm. Douslin, architect, deposed that he remembered the works at the Marlborough Hotel. The first part was a joint contract. It was signed by Norgrove Bros, and Wall. I understood the plaintiffs were to do all the painting, paper-hanging, and plumbing. Whatever canvass was taken down I should consider both responsible. The false front was defendants’ own contract. I have no idea of the measurements. The plaintiffs applied to me for the payment for the additional work at the front. Could not say positively whether they showed the amount to me or not. Their prices were for painting—canvassing, 3d ; for the canvass, 6d ; for hanging paper, Is 6d per piece. They applied to me for extras for lead. They did it by mistake, and were not allowed for it. Defendant said there was only £8 allowed for the extras, and put in a receipt for the amount.

Mr. Nelson said he did not admit the measurements put in. It was distinctly sworn by both plaintiffs there was a contract. The question was whether there was a; contract or not.

Examination continued: When Mr. Henderson spoke to me about it there was not £4 due to defendant. Can’t say the measurements are correct, but he would measure the work if desired by the Bench. George Henderson deposed that he remembered the contract in question. Did not know anything of the settlement. Do not remember seeing the receipt before. May have said he would pay £4 if Mr. Douslin said it was correct. The addition was Wall’s contract. Understood there was something left in dispute. By defendant: Have no knowledge of your giving plaintiffs an order verbally. Plaintiffs applied to me for money on account of extras, which I declined to pay. They then appeared to have applied to Wall tor it. Do not know the amount of Norgrove’s share of the work; having given the whole affair into Mr. Douslin’s hands, was satisfied with his supervision. By the Bench: Have no recollection of Norgroves applying to me for money on account of Wall. Believe they said Wall told them to apply to me for it. They seemed to be uncertain who should pay it. Would not have paid any order unless in writing. Thomas Wall, builder, deposed that he never entered into any contract as to the extras, no price being fixed. _ He understood it was to be charged for in the usual way by measurement. Paid the £8 in settlement of all claims. He put in an estimate, and by the measurements the full value of their work would be £6 Bs. There was 70 yards of painting. I paid £8 because they said they had to do it at different times. With respect to the goods in the set-off, I never had but one account. The plaintiffs fetched part of the goods. By Mr. Nelson: I know that plaintiffs live separate from their father, and have for some time. They never asked me for any set sum; they agreed to be paid according to, value. X had nothing to do with taking the ceilings down. At the settlement they made a demand for the sum according to measurement, which they did not dispute. Did not tell them Mr. Henderson, would pay them the. £4. When the £8 was paid there was no question in my presence, about a further sum. I can’t find an account in which the £8 was shown as taken by them as a total for extras. They had no authority from me to go to Henderson. Had .not the account before me when I paid the money.

Mr. Nelson pointed out that both the plaintiffs swore there was a contract. They admitted £3 of the set-off.

Mr. Wall in reply to the Bench stated that the money was deducted from his share of the contract in Mr. Henderson’s presence. All took place at that time in his office. Mr. Henderson also said he remembered the settling up. No money passed to the parties. It was some time after that that they came to me and asked for the £4. The Bench, after long deliberation, gave judgment for plaintiffs for £5 19s 3d and £2 11s costs, each party to pay his own expenses. H. DODSON V, M. GUNN. Mr. Pitt said the summons was issued in the usual way, and the bailiff having reason to believe the defendant had left the Province, had taken the course laid down in the Eesident Magistrates’ Act of serving the summons. John Kennedy, bailiff, deposed that he tried to serve the summons, and being unable to find defendant, he left it with an inmate over 20 years of age. Prancis Carey deposed that he kept plaintiff’s books, and the defendant was indebted to him £5 12s, the prices being fair and reasonable. Judgment for plaintiff, with £ 1 14s costs. HENDERSON V. DUESHI. The nature of this case did not transpire in Court.

Mr. Nelson, who appeared for the defendant in the case, wished to know how it stood, being a criminal information. The Chairman said that the man being dead, he did not see how the case could go on.

Mr. Pitt, for the plaintiff, said he wished to withdraw the case under the circumstances. He certainly did not mean to go on with it. j Mr. Nelson asked that the information should be read, as it might thereby appear there was evidence of a conspiracy. A more foul charge was never made against a poor man than the present one,' and he (Mr. Nelson) appeared there as defendant’s representative, and at his request, and wished to clear his character.

The Chairman said he knew sufficient through acting in another Capacity to enable him to dismiss the information as the party was dead.

Mr. Pitt said that as words had been used there which would go forth to the world, he would urge that the Chairman should express an opinion thereon. The Bench thought the words used were superogatory to the case. Case dismissed. BEEVES V. MURPHY. Mr. Pitt, for the plaintiff, said this was a case arising out of a former one, at the instance of Stenhouse, as against Messrs. Peeves, Murphy, and "Wall, when judgment was given for. the plaintiff, and upon execution being issued against Peeves he had paid the amount, and now sought to recover onethird of it from defendant. It would only be necessary for him to prove that the money had been paid by the plaintiff. Defendant pleaded not indebted. Edward Peeves deposed that he was one of the defendants in an action brought by Stenhouse, and on judgment being given against them, execution had been levied against him for £3l 5s 2d, which amount he had paid. The defendant wished to ask some questions as to what work was done at the Breach prior to the contract. The Bench ruled that they could not go into the merits of the former case. The law enabled the execution to issue against any one of the defendants, who could recover the sums of the others. The defendant wished to show that he resigned his office as a member of the committee .as soon as the contract was let, and prior to the case being heard. The Bench said the case then was against the three, and they could not again go into it. ’

The defendant said he had previously resigned, but as the Bench then decided that the hearing was to prove the existence of two committeesand theirrespective liability, he had not the option of defending himself. So far as he could see, Beeves had no right to pay either. He did not dispute his having done so. Judgment for plaintiff for £lO 8s 4d, with £2 13s costs.

PICTON V. A. HEKDEESOX. X’Wm. Picton, formerly a and keeping tbe'Tlough'lnn, sought to recover £6 7s 3d, due by defendant, a portion of which was secured by an acceptance. Defendant did not appear. Judgment for plaintiff, with 15s costs. EYTUELE & TAIX V. A. HENDEESOX. Elijah Bythell proved that defendant owed his firm £9 3s fijUl for bread supplied*. Judgment for plaintiff with costs.