RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XV, Issue 189, 10 August 1880, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

[Before L. Broad, Esq., R.M.] Waller Smith, who was brought over from Wellington by the Hawea this morning, was charged with the larceny as a bailee of a watch. The Superintendent of Police applied for a remand until Monday, which was granted. Mr Bunny, who appeared for the accused, asked for bail, which was allowed, the prisoner in £50, and two sureties in £25 each. The sureties were forthcoming, and the prisoner was released. Robert Malcolm v. Hooper and Do'hon. Action to recover £71 10s 3d for work done at the Star and Garter Hotel, .Richmond. Mr Fell appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Percy Adams for the defendants, who paid £61 4s 7d into Court, on the ground that that was a sufficient charge, for the work done. There was also a dispute about some of the articles charged for. The plaintiff said the charge was the ordinary one. He had charged 12s a day ior himself, and had employed two men, oae at 10s and the other at 8s a day. For them he had charged, in accordance with the ordinary trade custom, 11s and 10s respectively. He understood that Mr Good charged 10 and Mr Scott 20 per cent advance on the wages of those whom they employed. Cross-examined: He once a week came into town and went out by the 930 train, and got to work shortly after ten. He was certain the men worked eight hours a day. Ho was not aware that the man to whom he paid 8s a day had previously worked for Mr Robertson at 5s a day. When he sent in his bill Mr Dodson said it was an exorbitant charge, and suggested that it should be referred to some impartial arbitrator,, but he had declined. Re-examined : It would be impossible for any man, no matter how ingenious, to go over the house and say now what work had been done, as much of it would not show at all. W. Bethwaite went up yesterday at Mr Malcolm's request and valued the work done as though he was going to tender for it himself. His estimate for the labor alone was £27 16s Bd. Cross-examined : I have heard since I came into Court that plaintiff had charged £38 5a for labor. This closed the case for the plaintiff. Mr Percy Adams, for the defence, said that Malcolm had a contract for Hooner and Dodson at the Plough Inn, and Mr Dodson went there to see what was going on, and then told Malcolm there were a few odd jobß at the Star he wanted him to do. The next thing they heard about it was receiving a bill fo.r £71, when they would have been surprised if it had cost £20. The defence was that too much had beeu charged for labor ; that the men employed were incompetent, and that the work waß not done in a workmanlike manner. Malcolm was engaged in superintending the contract at the Plough, and at the same time was charging for day labor at the Star. J. R. Dodson explained the terms on which he had engaged Malcolm, and said that he was surprised at the amount charged, and bad since had an estimate made of the value of the work, upon the strength of which he had paid the sum into Court. George Thompson, the tenant of the Star and Garter, said the men were there much longer than there was any necessity for. borne of the work was very badly done, and one of the passages leaked worse than ever. One of the men, he considered, was not a competent carpenter. John Miller, builder, had been up and examined (he work, and valued it at £49 16s 4d.—W. Lightfoot valued it at £49 lls Brf, and W. Robertson at £50. These witnesses were examined at some length by Mr Fell, and the counsel pn both sides having addressed the Bench, His Worship said that he did not consider that he had before him a really accurate estimate of the value of the work, but it was clear that the plaintiff had over-charged. The best evidence was undoubtedly that of Bethwaite, who had valued the work as it was pointed out to him. Miller had admitted that there were several small items ho had not taken into accornt, and Robertson's and Lightfoot's appeared to be haphazard estimates of what the work might have been done for, so that it was very difficult to arrive at any exact calculation, but he con Bidered that the plaintiff was entitled to a trifle more than had been paid in, but not to costs, as it was clear that he bad made an excessive claim, and it seemed likely that, had he moderated it, it might not have come into Court. (Mr Fell: We offered to divide the difference.) He thought the plaintiff was entitled to £9 v l7s Id beyond what was paid into Court, but without costs, as it was evident that there had been a certain amount of dawdling over the work, and that a portion of it had been executed in an unworkmanlike manner. Mr Fell would ask the Bench to reconsider the question of costs. It had been ruled that his client was entitled to nearly £10 more than the defendants had paid in, then why should he not get his costs? If the judgment hatl been for a shilling more than the amount offered he bad a right to his costs, and surely his claim was much greater when the judgment was for nearly £10. His Worship said that, taking the whole circumstances of the case into consideration, he did not see his way to making au order for costs.