S.M. Court.

Manawatu Herald, 16 September 1899, Page 2

S.M. Court.

(Before A. Greenfield, Esq., S.M.) Thursday, Sept. 14th. (Continued.) Hooker and Curtis v. Austin Bros. —Claim £83 16s. Thomas Curtis deposed to the contract made, verifying previous witness. We agreed to take contract, and Austin agreed to pay log measurement. The book of lengths and size of logs is in his writing. Had no further talk with Austin" Uritil went for settlement, when Austin said he was going to pay by Moore's measurements. Said it was not the measurement we had agreed to work by. Never expected we would be paid any other way until we came to be squared up with. Cross-examined — Contract started Ist May, and no time to run. Austin found all gear to work the bush with. Some one at the settlement showed a book containing measurements, but had never said he agreed with the quantities. Cannot swear that the quantities as worked out are correct. Do not know how to work them out. Do not know that the book (produced) is the standard for measurement. Saw the book on table of office when, first entered into contract. H. Austin said he had paid Wallace on the measurements as directed by book. Had never expressed himself willing to accept lumber and log measurement. Mr Loughnan said this was plaintiff's case.

Mr Innes claimed a nonsuit as the plaintiffs had never proved their claim as they were unable to work the items out, and the person who had done so had not proved that they were correct. Mr Loughnan said the application was an unheard of one, they had placed every item and detail before the Court. The S.M. did not see his way to allow a non-suit. Mr Innes said the contract was let on lumber and log measurement. The price paid was a first-class one, and the contract was to be till the end of the year. They admitted delivery of 148,977 ft, of the value of £143 7s 4d, to which £8 had to be added, leaving a balance in favour of plaintiffs of £6 is 2d, which had not been paid into Court as there were attachments. Herbert Austin deposed— The cdntract was entered into on 4th May, they were to cut and deliver logs at mill at lumber and log measurement same as the mill had always paid on. Had worked other mills and had always paid on this basis. The contract was to have lasted to end of present year, so as to give contractors the benefit of summer and winter work. Moore's Standard work was shown contractors. Logs were measured immediately on being brought up to mill. When settlement was applied for they were £24 odd in debt, but another raft came down which put them £6 in credit. Log measurement and lumber and log shows a difference of one third. Cross-examined— -Had measured logs at the small end and length. Have notice from workmen by which am holding back the balance. Cannot swear a conversation did take place as mentioned by Hooker. Have an entry of this contract in my diary. There is no difference between paying for royalties and cntting timber. The price f>aid is sufficient to pay contractors on og and lumber measurement. Am prepared to swear he did not say to contractors only log measurement. By S.M.— These are the only people who have worked on contract. Have paid for rafting at sevenpence per hundred. Charles Austin deposed — Was present at interview for settlement of accounts. Hooker had said he agreed for log measurement, H. Austin said log and lumber measurement, and he said "is not that right Mr Curtis," who replied •• Yes." Cross-examined — Hooker and Curtis were present and Hooker heard Curtis say that. Hooker said measurements did not suit him, and he said he must have it made up by some one else. His brother said it was log aud lumber measurement, and Curtis agreed when Hooker again objected. Robert Corkery deposed — Had had 12 years sawmilling experience. Was working at Austins' when Hooker was supplying timber. Had measured

some of the logs. Had had previous experience. Would measure across centre at small end and square it. Cross-examined — Could not say if every log was measured. Never told plaintiff that many a log went through that mill that was never measured. H. W. Boon deposed — Was clerk in employ of defendants. Had had ex. perience in one other mill. What was done before was to pay for lumber and log measurement. Entries in book (produced) were entered every night from a board. The board shows thus, a log 18ft 17 x 16, and the lesser measurement is taken for the square and worked out into an average quantity, and then worked out by Moore's work. Saw Curtis one Sunday morning, and he said there was trouble about the measurements. Showed him the book, he said he was satisfied but his mate was not. Cross-examined— The difference in log measurement is one-third more than the log and lumber measurem«at. (Adding one-third to the quantity Austins showed there would even then be a great difference in the quantity claimed for. — Statementby Mr Loughman.) Hooker re-called— Contract was to deliver at the mill. Some logs got lost, but when we got our delivery note onr contract was done. Cross-examined— Was not present at any meeting when my mate agreed to take log and lumber measurement. Not in my presence. Claus Nissen deposed— Had been engaged in sawmills for many years. Part of time measured Hooker's logs, measured small end and length. George A. Gamman deposed— Was a sawmiller. Was formerly owner of Austins' mill. Used to get logs from Buckley's. Paid is gd per 100 ft at boom at mill, log and lumber measure* ment. One shilling and tenpence half* penny was a fair price for timber at lumber and log value. Could not afford to pay that price on log measure* ment. Knew of no other measurement except that from off the saw or log and lumber measurement. Knew of no mill which paid for actual measurement of logs. Believed the table in Moore's book a fair one to everybody. The mill should turn out 6000 or 7000 feet a day. Cross-examined— Thought 6d was a fair price for rafting. In white pine the loss on log and lumber measurement was one third. The proper way to measure was to take girth round the middle of the log. The case was adjourned to Palmerston to allow the solicitors to get the figures worked out. E. Osborne v. J. V. Burr. — Claim Mr Loughnan for plaintiff and Mr Innes for defendant. E. Osborne deposed— That the sum of £16 was an order given by a Native to Burr (produced) and which was given to me. Mr Innes objected to the document as being insufficiently stamped, as it practically was an equitable assignment, and was similar to a promissory note. It only bore a penny stamp. Mr Loughnan contended that the document was properly stamped. Point reserved. E. Osborne said he had sued a Maori and got judgment. Burr came with Maori and agreed to become surety for payment of the debt. Arranged with Burr to give p.n.s. for the amount at periods as mentioned. It was arranged Burr should have an order from the Native to stop rent due to pay these bills. Burr has paid one instalment. Judgment was given against Burr in this Court. Cross-examined — Burr and Maori were present when document was made out, signed same time. Burr was negotiating for a lease. The agreement was signed on the Bth. The other stamps may have been putv on afterwards. Mr Innes said the defence was that defendant was arranging for l»ase of certain lands, and Native got Burr to make this agreement. He had never got the lease nor did he occupy the land, and therefore there was no rent available. J. V. Burr deposed — Remembered making arrangements with Native and Osborne. Osborne said he heard he was getting a lease did it make any difference whether he paid him instead of Native. No rent had fallen due by him to the native. At the time document was signed there wasaijenny stamp on it, but "ho others < Cross-examined — Submitted to one judgment though not owing any nut. Have never offered any arrangement. Have disputed claim a dozen JtJjmes. When the Native got the mon^y he would not sign the lease. '' c The S.M. said the agreement amounted to a guarantee for amount. Judgment . for plaintiff ft»r amount, costs 365, solicitor's fee 20s.