MARTIN v. W S. CARTER.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 379, 18 February 1908, Page 2

MARTIN v. W S. CARTER.

Nearly the whole r of yesterday afternoon’s sittings of the local S.M. Court was taken up with the civil case K- J. Martin (Mr Read) v. W. S. Carter (Mr Moore) claim £6 for repairs and fixing up artesian well; the defendant counterclaimed £lO as damages. Plaintiff, E. J. Martin, a wellsinker of 35 years standing, stated that he had a conversation with Carter last January twelve months. Carter wanted an artesian well, repaired and a fresh pipe put down. Agreed to do the work for £6. Prior to claimant doing the work the well had almost ceased to run. When he repaired the well there was a flow of 70 gallons per hour. He believed Carter . had been: getting a flow of that volume since. Subsequently saw Carter who said the price was “ pretty stiff,” and claimant agreed to .take £5 if paid at once. Carter complained that ; the well was not giving satisfac- j tion, and claimant offered to fix it up, but Carter threatened to bump him off the property if he went there, and also published a notice in the local paper warning trespassers. Kept sending accounts for the amount. When asked for a settlement Carter told him he had “ a nerve,” and said Martin could summons him for it. Told Carter he would take £5 for the pipes, etc. Carter never made any demand for damages r until served with a summons by claimant’s solicitor.

George Martin, son of claimant, gave evidence as to the work done. Would estimate the flow of water after the repairs at 60 gallons per hour.

Walter S. Carter, defendant, said the old well had been put down about 17 years ago. Martin guaranteed an inch flow for £6. After the work was done by Martin, he inspected it and found that the well was not. flowing full. Martin asked for in settlement before defendant had inspected the well. He promised to settle with Martin after inspection. The well was now running 30 gallons per hour, and had been three times the volume of water running before Martin touched the well. It would have paid him to have given Martin £5 to have left the well alone.

Lengthy evidence was given as to the fixing Of pipes, etc. Samuel Wm. Carter and two employees of defendant gave evidence that the flow had decreased considerably since Martin had done the work* Mr Moore addressed the Bench at considerable length, and- reviewed the evidence, holding that a guarantee of a full flow had been given by Martin to Carter; and that faulty workmanship had been proved. After Mr Read had addressed the Bench on behalf of the claim- 1 -; ant, the Magistrate said the base for the defendant had been very ‘ ably put by Mr Moore, but he was not satisfied that Martin had given a guarantee, although there was : no doubt defendant expected a full flow. It was hardly likely that Martin would give a guarantee on old work. The contention of faulty workmanship was not justified in view of Martin’s long experience. No doubt the result was disappointing to Carter. Judgment would be for plaintiff for costs £2 is, and the counter claim would be dismissed.