RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4435, 7 June 1875, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Saturday, June 5. (Before J. C. Crawford, Esq., E.M.)j' DRUNK. Elizabeth Burke, a fallen woman, who sinks daily into deeper degradation, was charged with drunkenness, vagrancy, and using obscene language. . Elizabeth is a young woman of twenty-six, who could at one time boast of good connections in Melbourne ; but all hope of reform being apparently gone, his_ Worship sentenced her to . one month’s imprisonment. She had only recently completed a similar period of confinement. THE STEWART CASE. TTin Worship, in giving his decision in this case, said that, taking into consideration the precarious nature of the property—houses and paddocks—made over to his son by the defendant, and the fact that the leases had only a year or two to run, during which repairs would probably be required, he had come to the conclusion that ss. a week was a reasonable allowance towards the support of defendant’s wife. An order to that effect was made, each aide to pay their own costs. ASSAULT. Lawrence Farrelly, an old man who is afflicted with partial paralysis, shook like an aspen leaf when placed in the box, charged with assaulting his wife. Mrs, Farrelly is a strong, wiry-looking woman, but it appeared from her statement that the defendant, by his drunken ill-humor and persistent attack, had worn her out, and compelled her to seek the assistance of the Court. Defendant was fined 10s.'and costs, in default to be committed for forty-eight hours ; also, to be bound over to keep the peace for three months, himself_ in the sum of £lO, and one surety in a like amount. CIVIL CASES. Toxward v. Marshall.—Claim, £22 195., architect’s commission for preparation of plans and superintending erection of a house, which cost £458. £l4 4s, was paid into court, and tho. remainder disputed on the ground that defendant had permitted unsuitable material to be used in the construction of the house. Mr, Moorhouse appeared for plaintiff ; Mr. Allan for defendant. Mr. Toxward stated that upon defendant’s instructions he drew plans, which were deemed satisfactory, and the erection of tho house was proceeded with. The work was carried out in a workmanlike manner by the contractor, and no complaint was over made until ho put tho case in the hands of his solicitor for recovery of the amount due, although he had communicated with tho defendant by letter as to tho payment of the commission. Under crossexamination by Mr. Allan the witness stated that he could not produce the specifications, which were probably destroyed, as he usually had a “ clear out” of such documents every qnartex - , after they were done with. He could not, therefore, testify as to the actual contents of the specifications, though he knew there was nothing said about “ dry” timber. They provided that proper timber should be used, and all precaution was taken to ensure that end, but Now Zealand timber always expanded

and shrank according to the weather. He e»w that the work was properly foro giving certificates, but he could not bo iespousiblo for anything that happened to the building many months after the contract was complete. It frequently happened, through no fault of the contractor or architect, that doors had to be rejbung through shrinking, after a lapse of time.” John Maguire, the contractor for the ercctiop of the building, stated that the timber, doors, and sashes put into the house were the beat that could be found. They came from Greenfield and Stewart’s mill. Mr. Toxward inspected the work about twice a week, and made a thorough examination, sometimes causing witness to alter work which he (Mr. Toxward) did not deem satisfactory. T. J. Marshall, the defendant, stated that he paid the contract money for the erection of the house, upon Mr. Toxward’s certifying that the work had been satisfactorily performed. Some little time after tbe house was occupied by the first tenant, (Mr. Chapman,) it was found that some of the work had been very badly done, and ■witness had to remedy the defects, at a cost of £S 55., which he had deducted from Mr. Toxward’s charge. J. G. Chapman, the tenant,_ gave a very cheerful account of his experiences in the house before the defects were remedied. The doors were very bad ; the panels cracked ; the mouldings parted from their attachments with the utmost facility ; the drawing-room door shrunk ; the front door had a slit in it through which the newspaper boy pushed the paper in the morning; in fact, all the doors were so twisted as to be useless. The window-sashes warped and broke the glass, and only one sash in the house could open and shut. The cracks in the doors were very useful as ventilators in the summer, but in the winter the effects were not quite so agreeable. F. G. Petherick and G. Brown testified to the state of the building, and corroborated the evidence of Mr. Chapman. Counsel having addressed the Bench, His Worship said the architect could not. always be held responsible for the shrinkage of timber, Hew Zealand timber being peculiarly liable to shrink, and possibly no blame attached to Mr. Toxward in the present case ; but at the same time the line must be drawn somewhere as to the architect’s responsibilities, and he thought it might be drawn at a limit which permitted newspapers to be pushed through cracks in the front ?door. Judgment would , therefore be given for the amount paid into court, plaintiff to pay costs. There were a few other civil cases down for hearing, but they were of no public interest.