SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5084, 10 July 1877, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CIRCUIT SITTINGS. Monday, July 9. (Before his Honor the Chief Justice and juries of twelve.) PETHEKICK V. LDXFOED. ’ Mr. Travers for plaintiff ; Mr. Brandon for defendant.

This was an action brought by Mr. Petheriok, a builder, against defendant, to recover certain moneys alleged to be due and owing. His claim was made up of three separate items—one for a fixed sum of £250 for erecting a certain addition to a house in Ingestre-street ; the second for a sum of £4O, for alterations and additions to the original building ; third, a sum of £ls, for the cost of some fencing and hanging gates at a place called Brighton House, in Willis-street—in all £305. Plaintiff gave defendant credit for a sum of £l5O moneys paid, leaving a balance of £155. Defendant pleaded never indebted except as to £76, which he had always been and still was ready to pay, and had tendered before the commencement of the action. The issues put before the jury were—(l) Is the money paid into court sufficient to satisfy the plaintiff’s claims ? (2) If not, what further sum is plaintiff entitled to recover ? Plaintiff, examined by Mr. Travers, gave evidence as to the value of the work done. To Mr. Brandon: The work was all done in a workmanlike manner. The floors were level ; the doors opened easily. All the work was done properly. Re-examined : Mr. Luxford was constantly present when the work was being done. This was plaintiff’s case. Mr. Brandon, in addressing the jury, said the work had not been done properly, which he should call witnesses to prove. Mr. Travers objected that under the pleadings in the case such a defence was not open to defendant.

The Court took a note of the objection. George Henry Luxford gave evidence, admitting that he had employed plaintiff to do certain work, but stated that the work had not been done properly. It was understood that the work was to be done properly. Plaintiff said he would make a good job of it. Everything had been done badly. Samuel Brown, contractor, was called, in support of the defence, to prove that the work had been badly performed. Messrs. Scoular, Toxward, Archibald, Wilson, Wallis, Bauson, and other witnesses were called, and gave evidence as to the manner in which the work had been done. It appeared that the matter had been left to Wilson and Wallis as arbitrators; but they disagreed, not as to the quality of the work, but as to the amount of work done. They then referred the matter to Mr. Eanson, who awarded £230, but this award was not carried out. Counsel having addressed the Court, His Honor charged the jury, who after a short absence from Court found for plaintiff for the full amount claimed. TATLOK V. M'DONALD. This was an action to recover £55 on an overdue promissory note. The plaintiff is William Waring Taylor, of Wellington, merchant ; and defendant had carried on business as a saddler and harness maker in Wellington. There were transactions between the parties up to July, when defendant dishonored the bill, which plaintiff now sought to recover upon, subject, however, to a set off of £l6. Mr. Brandon appeared for plaintiff; Mr. Bell for defendant. Owing to the form of the pleadings the burden of proof lay upon defendant, and Mr. Bell opened his case and called the defendant, who admitted that the bill had been

dishonored. When the bill became due, he said he went to Mr. Taylor, and told him he could not pay the bill, but paid him £5 on account, and suggested that the balance should be taken out. Defendant agreed to this, and plaintiff thereupon commenced to manufacture goods for him, and supplied him with such goods to the amount of £56. In cross-exami-nation he denied that he had from time to time sent these goods to Mr. Taylor merely as security for the debt due. This was the case for the defendant. Wm. Waring Taylor stated he had never agreed to purchase the goods, but had merely taken them as security for the debt; and as a security they were insufficient. Messrs. Wingate and John Taylor confirmed plaintiff’s statements as to the nature of the transactions between plaintiff and defendant. The jury found for plaintiff. The Court then adjourned.