RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4421, 21 May 1875, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thursday, Mat 20. (Before J. 0. Crawford, Esq., R.M.) Thomas Murray, remanded from yesterday for being drunk and using obscene language, was fined 205., in default forty-eight heurs' imprisonment. - Maukua Hohua, charged with using threatening language, was dismissed with a caution, on payment of 9s. costs. John Bragen and E. J. Wakefield were each fined 10s. for drunkenness, in default fortyeight hours' imprisonment. John Gallagher was brought up and charged with robbery with violence by one E. Spriggs. Some few days ago another man named Sheehan was brought up on a similar charge by Mr. Spriggs, and remanded until next Tuesday, to which date John Gallagher was also remanded. The plaintiff, Mr. Spriggs, appeared in court on Tuesday last in a pitiable condition, his face being covered with very severe bruises. The assault took place last Saturday evening at the Upper Hutt.

COACH-BUILDEES CASE. Watson v. Matheson.—Claim, £l2 ss. Mr, Moorhouse appeared for plaintiff ; Mr. Buckley for defendant. The plaintiff, being sworn, stated : I am a coachbuilder, living in Ghuz-nee-street. On April 6 Matheson, Jhe defendant, brought his cab to my establishment to be mended, at the same time pointing out certain,work he wished to have done. _ He called next day and pointed out additional work. On the first day he spoke of the shaft iron, which wab broken, the spring, which wanted repairing, and the panel of the door, which was smashed. On the second time he came he began to pick the woodwork of the boot to pieces, tearing it nearly all off. H| then requested my man to examine it, and afterwards ordered the repairs required. There was no agreement as to price. We immediately began to repair it, tho dismantling talcing a day and a-half. The entire repairs took ten or twelve days. During the work

going ; on the defendant continually informed me that " the money would be all right," and that I should get paid as soon as it was completed. I .then, on account of this promise of a ready-money settlement for the repairs when finished, reduced my bill from £ls Ba. 6d. to £l2 55., for which amount I- made out a bill, and put on a receipt stamp and handed it to the defendant, requesting payment. He did not pay me then, but promised to do so next day. (The bill produced and identified;) I have seen him since, and on April 29th gave him another bill—a-detailed account of particular items. He came to me again about three weeks aftenyards, and offered" me -£B, which I refused to receive, stating at the time that it had cost me more than that for wages. My experience as a coach-builder ranges over, twenty-two years. .The "work' .was done' as well as the ■'circumstances of the case would' admit of. The whole, cab. was in a most rotten state. Cross-examinedby Mr. Buckley: I wanted the money, and would have taken the £l2 ss. instead of £ls Bs. 6d. to avoid any further, trouble and delay in the matter. The defendant did not at first make any remark about the charges not being.reasonable, but subsequently offered me. £B, saying that was sufficient for the work done. The charges are quite fair and By Mr. Moorhouse: Besides the work I supplied the material. '.

Sydney Colrick sworn, , stated : I am a coach-builder by trade, and am. foreman to Mr. Watson. I have had fourteen "years' experience in London. I remember the defendant bringing his cab to be repaired, it was altogether in a rotten • state. I received my directions from the defendant from time to time. When, the work was finished I asked the defendant whether he was satisfied with the work, he said. he was, but in such a dissatisfied manner that I refused to deliver up the cab on my owrti account, and therefore sent for Mr. Watson. When Mj\ Watson arrived the defendant promised to pay him next day, and was then allowed to take away the cab. He has since been to the factory and had work done to the cab. The charges are fair and reasonable. Matheson, sworn, stated : I am a cabman, and in April last I went to Watson| coachbuilder, and left my cab to be repaired..: There was no agreement as to price. I afterwards offered him>£B, which I had; been advised was a fair payment for the work done. He refused it, and said if I did not pay him the £l2 ss. he would make me pay double. He then sent me in a bill for £ls Bs. 6d. and a summons. I never offered him £l2 at all, or made any pi-o-mise as to time of payment. Mr. Black has seen the repairs. Mr. Black, sworn, stated : I am a coachbuilder in Wellington.. Two or three days ago Matheson came to me with a bill, and asked me to look over it, and make a fair valuation. I refused immediately. He then, returned the next day, and I at first again refused to pass any opinion on one of the same trade as myself. Ultimately I looked over the charges, and told defendant they were nearly double what they ought to be for the description of work done ; it is. not a trade job at all. Half the price charged would pay me well. I have never furnished two or three different accounts for the same work.—Cross-examined by Mr. Moorhouse: You say, Mr. Black, that the charges in the.account are nearly double what the trade price is. Will you look through that bill and point out one instance of a double charge having been made I —Mr. Black : I would sooner not It would take up too much time of the Court.—Mr. Moorhouse : Do as I order you to do, sir ; you are a witness in my hands. —Mr. Black (after much hesitation) selected the . Ist item, viz., door panel and beading, for which 12s. was charged, and said the proper charge would be 6s. ; but upon being pressed, said he had never done any work of the kind. The 2nd item met with the same fate; Mr. Black never having done" such work,'could form no judgment. When the 3rd item was called on, Mr. Black informed the Court that he was not actuated by any spirit of rivalry to Mr, Watson, who was not any opposition to him—in fact, he had no opposition in the country, only spoke for the interests of the craft. He was very high spirited, and spoke what he thought. He did ask Dr. Grace £l2 for a brake, which was supplied by Mr. Watson for £6. He had no contract at present with Matheson. Speaking generally,.the charge is double too much.

Cross-examined by Mr. Buckley : When I stated I never did work of the kind, I of course meant of such an inferior description of workmanship... I do not consider Watson a good coach-builder—coaches not safe. I have no animosity towards him whatever. E. Goodwin." sworn, stated : I. am a master coach-builder in a' small way, and have had twenty-two years' experience. The defendant came to me in the same way as he did to Mr. Black. ; I did not examine the repairs, and therefore am unable- to form an opinion of the fairness of the charges. I consider Mr. Black a good coach-builder and good workman. Ido not consider Mr. AVatson the same. : I

Mi-. Buckley > for defendant, stated that there .was no promise'.of £l2 .being, paid on completion of work, but that £8 had been offered as fair pay for the work done. He thought that the evidence of! Mr. Black, a very long experienced coach-builder, was reliable, and he states that the'eharges are double what they ought to be; and Mr. Watson, on the other hand;'not being so good a workman, is not iu a, position to know what is a fair and reasonable charge. The £8 being offered, the tender is a good one. Mr. Moorhouse objected to the term " tender," and stated on behalf of plaintiff that the cab, which was in a very dilapidated condition, was to be repaired and made fit for work. From the evidence, it was clear that the apparent roughness -of the work was caused by the absence of paint and varnish, which the defendant objected to. The work was daily inspected by the defendant, and no objection was offered until probably suggested by interested-persons from without. Concerning the great reduction, it was quite natural that £l2 55., without the trouble and expense of collection, was better than £ls Bs. 6d.' on the deferred payment system. The charges were fair, as shown by the evidence of the foreman) Mr. Corlick. The impression Mr. Black created was that he was a very.superior actor, and on first coming into court he stated hisgreat reluctance to give evidence against a brother tradesman, and then immediately made statements which he could , not, for one moment'' substantiate, and endeavored to annihilate a gentleman, who, for all we know, might be an equally' good workman with himself. The defendant being-a foreigner . His Worship : A Highlander you mean. (Laughter.) Mr. Buckley:" I think, sir, he is a German. (More laughter.) Mr. Moorhouse was then informed that defendant was a Swede. He continued: Well, sir, the defendant is a Swede, and a very cunning one too, and has tallied this matter over with ; his brother cabbies, who have probably advised him to delay as long as possible, with the possibility of getting a further reduction made in costs. Judgment for £ll lis. 6d. Defendant ordered to pay £1 per week, and to pay costs forthwith. -