RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4409, 7 May 1875, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thubsday, Mat 6. (Before J. C. Crawford, Esq., K.M.) CONTRACT DISPUTE. W. Lennox v. D. Dick.—This was a claim for £l2. The plaintiff, W. Lennox, sworn : I was engaged to build one bridge at 418, and completed it. There was no written agreement, and no stipulation made about its being passed by the engineer. I was engaged for another bridge at £4, on a separate agreement. I completed this. When the engineer came up the bridge was not quite finished. He would not pass tte bridges. He had nothing to do with my work. I asked the defendant several times if he was satisfied with the bridges, when he said he was. It was not until the engineer refused to pass them that .defendant refused to pay me. By defendant : I did not enter into any agreement that the bridges were to pass the engineer. I did not agree to construct five bridges for £32. Charles Bullen, sworn: I was in partnership with Lennox. We undertook the contract for one bridge at £B, which we completed. We I afterwards contracted for another bridge at £4. Before finishing the latter one the surveyors inspected the work and refused to pas? either bridge, and then the defendant refused to pay for them. By defendant: We did not agree to take five culverts at £32. George Smith, sworn: We contracted for the bridges. Agreed to construct one for £B, and another for £4. There was no agreement that , the work should pass the • surveyor. The defendant attended every morning, and always expressed himself satisfied with the work. We did not agree to do five culverts for £32. By defendant: We built the bridges according to instructions. D. Dick, sworn : I arranged with the plaintiffs for the construction of five culverts; three at £B, two at £4. They agreed to put them up, and also that they should pass the surveyor. The flooring was badly constructed; it would not hold clay or metal. The surveyor would not allow anything on them. Myself and Mr. Baird, surveyor, showed them how to construct the work. It would take a day and a half to finish the work. They would have to put on fresh covering. By Lennox: When I showed you the plan I told you that it was not worth while drawing a separate plan for a culvert 4x2. I did not specify the number of stringers. George Beere, sworn : I am a surveyor, and in charge of the road line on which the works have been erected. I inspected the culverts on the 3rd April. They were not properly constructed, and so I declined to pass them. The entire work would have to be taken down and rebuilt, to make it a good job. Plaintiff was nonsuited, with costs. W. Fife v. Amos Burr.—Claim £ll 15a., for goods supplied. Judgment for amount, and costs, 20s. J. Gear v. W. Swiney.—Claim £2O lis. 5d., for goods supplied. Judgment for amount, and costs, 255. J. Kershaw v. W. F. Brown.—Claim £2 6s. Adjourned for a week. Some half-a-dozen judgment summonses brought the civil business of the Court to a close. The criminal sheet contained the names of two inebriates, who were dismissed- with a caution. Henry Hartnup was again remanded until he could be handed over to the naval authorities.