SUPREME COURT.

New Zealander, Volume 4, Issue 264, 9 December 1848, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

Auckland, December 2nd, 184 S. Before Chiki* Justice Blartin. Hrs Honor the Cliief Justice took his seat at fen o'clock on Saturday morning last, and proceeded to paB3 sentence on the prisoners, convicted on the preview-, day, as follows :—: — William Thompson— Eighteen months impiisonment in the Common Gaol at Auckland, to be kept at hard labour. James Laing — Transported for seven years. William WG^e, James Fleure, and John WalkersTransported f m' «Ueen yems The Cou.\ vj-13 then adjourned.

Civil Sitting. Thursday, December 7, 1848. Before His Honor the Chief Justice and the following- Special Jury—

Mr. W. S. Grahame, foreman ; Messrs. A. Kennedy, X>. Nathan, T. S. Forsaith, R. Mitchell, W. Connell, K. Ridings, J. Hooper, L. M'Lachlan, W. Powditch, P, Monro, and J. IJeveridge.

John Walker v, Robert and David Graham. It appeared from the pleadings that this was an action brought by Mr. John Walker, of Auckland, architect and builder, to recover £339 9«., balance of account due from Messrs. Robert and David Graham, Of Auckland, merchants and co partners to plaintiff for work and labour dou<>, services rem'.eied, aud material supplied by phmtiff to defendants at their request, in the election of a stone and brick building in Shortlaud Street, as appeared by particulais of account rendered, of which the following is a copy. Superintending the laying of a concrete foundation for a stone and brick house, 19 days, at one guinea per day £id 19 0 Use of barrows, trussels. ladders., shovels, and other tools, 19 days, at ss. per day 415 0 Brick work to bouse, including all material?, 26' rods, at £25 per rod 650 0 0 Labour, nutty, and mor'ar, on stone front and oth^r work to ditto 125 0 0 799 14 0 Received at various times, on account .. 160 5 0 Bilince for which action was brought ..359 9 0 The defendants admitted the first item, but said, as to the second item, that the charge of ss. a day for the use of barrows, &c , &c, was unreasonable and eK'ieS'iive , as to the thi»d item, that the buck work amounted to 21-j -d T , md no more, and not to 2G rods as ajl gsd by ihrf p ■untiff, and tbat the charge of ,£25 a roa was unieasonable and excessive ; as to the last item, the defendants admitted the sum of £'/Q 17s. Bd. to have been due to plaintiff, but denied that any fuither sum w<ts due to him in re«pecc of the last item ; and the defendants farther said that they had paid to the plaintiff (over aud above ths sum of £ifib 5s admifed by him to have beeu received) the further sum of £33 155. ; and that they tendered to the plaintiff the Bum of £$0, and said, that t-ave and except that sum they were not indebted to tiic plaintiff in any sum v/hitever. The Plaintiff admitted the tender to htue been duly made, but declined to accept the same, and then took issue on all the other allegations in the plea. Mr. Whitaker, on behalf of the plaintiff, opened the pioceedings and gave an outline of the c.tbe to the jury ; he put in seveial letters that had passid between the defendants 1 solicitor and himself, which were read. It appeared from these documents that application had been made to the defendants to allow the plaintiff, or any disinterested person, to go on the premises and measure the building, and that the defendants had jefused to grant such permission. Mr. 'Wbitakcr then pioceeded to ca'l a number of witnesses to jpve their testimony as to the value of bricks, lime, sand, &c , during the season that the building was q jing forward ; others, who had been working on ths building during the course ot its erection, to state the rate of wages fchey received from the plaintiff; and several eontiac-tor-,—Messrs. P. Sharkey, T. Claik, and H. White— to prove the vulue of brick work, per lod, and the amount of mateiial of all kinds requhed for tint quantity oi work, toqeibt i- with the current puces within the mouths of May and November last. These contractors stated that they thought i. J25J 25 a rod are tollable jirice. Two of the witnesses— Messrs. Tudehop and Lawson — who bad erected the stone front, stated, that they bad conti acted with pUntiff for the labour iequired on that par; of the work, a* the Mim of JL9I Iss. 10d., exclusive of mater ais. Tbat that sum did not • ly tl c n ; find tint they would not mu'er'ake n»Ot er jo 1 ) i f the same kind foi that pi ice. Mr. Whitaker also called .Mr. Boon, to give evidence as to the quantity of brick wink in the building. He had been sent by the plt.ntifr to procure as accurate a measuitine t as possible fiom the outside ot the Store ; h« bt-ited, tbat be took ih 3 best measurement lie could uuder the circumstances; Ins dimensions were taken under great disadvantages ; he counted the courses of the wall, outside, tiotn top to bottom, an'- 1 thu> ascertained the hiijjbt; he took tr.e length with a tape ; and, by look* ing through the windows from without, he aiuved at ihe measurement ot the inside partitions, He believed his mea-uiement was as accurate as possible— and he found the amount of brick work to be 21-^ rods 11 ieet 9 inche«, without the chimney tops. The evidence in support of the plaintiff's case hay« in? been gone through — The Attorney-General, on behalf of the defendants, stated the grounds <>t objection to the plaintiff's demand, and called upon Mr. Styac, foieman of works, Royal Engineer Depaitment, who had been employed with Mi. Roheitson, architect, by the defendants to measure the uoik contained in the building. This witness stated that the niedsiiremeut of the biickwork amounted to 2l£ rods ; tliat £19 17s. 6'd. was the value of a rod of work -accuiding to the English standard jjrices, including bricklayers' and labourers' woi k, and the price of mate rial here while the builrlinsr w«i*> progressing ; that the cost of thcbrickwoik was, according to this scale, £422 6's. loid., bus when the sum of £<24 \Ga. 3d., which he allowed tor opening-,, was deducted, the value of the entire brickwork anio'inted to £398 10;. 7 kd., which he considered a fair valuation ; and that £70" i?s. Bd. was a f.ur value of the stone wink on the front. Upon being- cross-examined by .Mi, \\ hitakcr, this witness Mated tliat he and Mr. Roberts >n had, <u their fnst measurement, valued the whole work at £575, and had been paid for their seivices at the late of 2$ per cent, on that sum ; but that, at a subsequent measurement, they had fixed the value of the brickwork at £398 10s. 7-|d., and the stone work at £70 17s. Bd. Mr Robertson, in his testimony, agreed with the former witness as to the valuation, but differed in his i statemetit'siid other respects 5 be stated that the worn performed in laying 21 window sills had not been measured nor included in the valuation given in by his colleague and himself. be\eral other witnesses were examined ; but as the whole evidence was very voluminous, our space will not admit of its being given entire. Mr. Whitiker addiessed the jury on behalf of the plaintiffs, followed by the Attorney-General for the defendants; the Chief Justice having 1 briefly summed Dp, t tlie juiy retiied, and after about half au»hour's absence returned to court with a verdict for the plaintiff— £306 Is., and costs. The trial occupied the Court from ten o'clock in the morning until haif-past eight, p.m.