Patea R.M. Court.

Patea Mail, 28 July 1881, Page 4

Patea R.M. Court.

Tuesday, before Mr C. A. Wray, R.M. DISPUTED SURVEY. Combes v. Paul was a claim for £25 16s lOd, surveying a paddock into small building, sections, adjoining Mr Dale’s building paddock near the Hospital. Mr Adams was for plaintiff, Mr Hamerton being also retained for the same side ; and Mr Ward was for the defence. Plaintiff’s case was that lie claimed for the survey as far as it had gone, the work having been stopped by Mr Paul shortly before completion, in consequence of a disagreement as to the cost of the survey. Mr Combes had occupied 12 days in field work, making three plans, and calculations. He had charged 30s a day for his own labor. Twelve days’ delay was caused by the Chief Surveyor at New Plymouth not answering a letter as to some detail he would require for passing a plan of sections under the Land Transfer Act. Mr Ward, for the defendant, asked : How many of your plans have failed to pass the Land Transfer office ? Plaintiff: Not one. Mr Ward : Well, that is a piece of information that should be given to many eminent surveyors. Plaintiff ; Yes, I think it is advisable they should know it. I had to make three plans, and the surve)' had to begone over three times, the last being a check, as the Land Transfer requirements are very strict. T. Parnell said he assisted Mr Combes in the field work. Heard Mr Paul say he would not have any more expense incurred ; that the job had been a long time, and he was sick of it. Mr Combes did say, “ How dare you speak to me in that way, a licensed surveyor ?” Witness walked away and heard no more. Mrs Combes said : I took a note to Mr Paul, my husband not having time to go then. Mr Paul, after considering the note fifteen minutes, said he would not pay the bill; that Mr Dale had advised him not to pay the charge; that Mr Combes had been doing other work in Mr Paul’s time ; that be was willing to pay £ls ; that he was persuaded not to pay Mr Combes’s bill, and he would not. I said Mr Paul was not competent to judge the proper price ; that surveyors were judges of the proper price. Mr Ward, for the defence, said this was one of the most trumped-up cases he had ever heard of. The plaintiff could not claim a quantum mei'uit because the defendant had received no benefit from what had been done, nor would this incomplete survey be of any use to him until the plan was officially passed under the Land Transfer Act. D. Paul, defendant, said : My paddock is about eight acres, and Mr Combes asked me on two occasions if I had decided to have it surveyed into building lots. I asked what his charges would be,, and he said “I can’t tell you that.” I said that is very queer : Mr Tregear has been able to tell me.” He said lip was prepared to do work for me on more reasonable terms than Mr Tregear. He mentioned an instance in point. I then said if he was agreeable to do my work as reasonably as Mr Tregear was, he could go on with it. He said he would charge 25s a day. On the first day he was half an hour in the paddock, and the remainder of the time he went to Mr Read’s. A part of the second day he was doing a survey in the town, and for several consecutive days he was only parts of the day in the paddock, in fine weather. My instruction was to finish the survey with all despatch. I had arranged with Mr Dale to advertise and sell the sections, but he declined to go on with the sale until the plan was passed under the Land Transfer Act. Then Mr Combes said the Chief Surveyor was humbugging him with reference to Mr Bead’s survey of a bush section, and he had to do part of the work over again. Mrs Combes came up with a note for £lO to be paid on account. I afterwards asked Mr Combes bow much the survey would cost altogether, and be said £25 or £3O, and if it had to be connected with a trig station on the hill, it would take him three days longer. I said that was an exorbitant price and I would not pay it. On the 14th July he came into the paddock, and I asked what be was going do. He said “ How dare you speak to me. I am a professional man, and I will not be talked*to in that manner.” I said “You are employed by me now to survey this paddock, and I want to know what you are going to do,” I also said, “ Finish it, for God’s sake and send me my plan, and let me get clear of you.” He said he would go on as a professional man, and

finish the survey irrespective of my orders.” Two days after I had a bill in the house and a summons at the same time. I am willing to pay the amount agreed upon at first—that is a more reasonable charge than Mr Tregear’s. I want the survey finished. By the Bench : The purchase of the paddock from Mr Thompson is not complete, but I may complete it to-morrow. £ want to put the land under the Land Transfer Act, to be able to give a title for any sections I may sell. E. Tregear, authorised surveyor, said he had offered to survey the paddock for the same price as he had surveyed Mr Storey’s, namely £ls. The two padlocks are about the same size. A survey under the Land Tranfer Act is not complete till it passes the office in New Plymouth. The Magistrate gave a verdict for the claim, with costs, on the ground that the defendant had prevented the plaintiff from completing the survey. CLAIM FOB IMPOUNDING. Odgera v. Derrett was a claim for sheep trespass and cost of impounding. Mr Derrett, 'VVhenuakura, liad some sheep grazing on Mr R. C. Tennent’s land bj* arrangement. Mr W. Odgers owns land adjoining, and 48 sheep got over a ditch and bank fence into Mr Odgers’s paddock. He impounded the sheep, and charged 9d a head for damage by trespassing on securely fenced land, and refused to restore the sheep until that claim was paid. Mr Derrett took legal advice, paid the claim for damage, £1 16sj elso poundage fees and driving fees, and got his sheep back. Then Mr Derrett sued Mr Odgers for recovery of the £ll6s alleged damage, and sued for £5 as special damage sustained by hia sheep being impounded. Mr Adams was retained to defend Mr Odgers. Mr Hamerton, for Mr Derrett, argued that the demand made by Mr Odgers for damage through trespass was an illegal claim, because the Taranaki Ordinance provided that no damage for trespass could be recovered unless the fence was not less than 4 feet high, whereas thisfence was only 2ft sin. to 3 feet high. He had allowed 7s as the cost of repairing the damaged fence, and submitted that he was entitled to recover the poundage fees as illegal. The damage suffered by Mr, Derrett was not insisted on. The Magistrate decided that the fence was not sufficient under the Ordinance to entitle the defendant to claim damage for trespass. Verdict for £1 16s less the 7s agreed to for repairing fence. Costs were also allowed, as well as.counsel’s fee, the claim being over £5 ; total costs £2 16s. CLAIM FOR WAGES. Wm. Nicholson, a young man, sued Mr Hamilton, owner of a farm at Manutahi, for balance of wages for casual labor on farm, £ls 12s 6d. Defendant did not appear, but his evidence had been taken at Wanganui by commission, denying that he had given any authority for the defendant to work on the farm. The plaintiff stated that his father managed the farm, and emploj r ed plaintiff in casual work. Father of plaintiff deposed that Mr Hamilhad authorised him to employ anj T labor required on the farm, and Mr Hamilton knew the son was working occasionally. Verdict for amount claimed, and costs. Wednesday, before H. F. Christie and R. C. Tennent, J.P.’s. CHIMNEYS ON FIRE. C. F. Barker was summoned for allowing the chimney of his house to be on fire last Saturday evening. Fined 5s and costs 7s. J. A. Houguez was fined 10s and 14s costs for a similar offence, this being a more dangerous case, as a wooden top had been fixed on.the chimney, and the wood caught fire. THEFT OF A WATCH. George Adams, stableman, .Patea, was charged on remand with stealing a watch from George Colvill. The case for the prosecution was that on Saturday night, February 12th, the prosecutor fell asleep in an outhouse sear the Central Hotel. On awakening, he found the watch gone. The prisoner was in charge of adjoining stables, and on the Bth July George Brown, watchmaker, spoke to him about mending a watch, and asked the prisoner what watch he was then wearing. Prisoner showed him the watch produced, and Brown recognised it by a private mark inside as a watch he had repaired for Colvill. Brown told him the watch had been stolen or lost. The prisoner then wanted Brown to take the watch, to give it to the owner, known as boiling-down Billy. But Brown told him to take the watch himself to the owner. Prisoner told Brown he had bought the watch. Sergeant Donovan said he asked the prisoner on the 14th July to account for

having the stolen watch in his possession. Prisoner said he bought the watch at Hawera four or five months ago from a man with sandy whiskers whose name he did not know, but had seen him in Patea. He had lent 15s on the watch. The Sergeant said he would give every opportunity to find the man at Hawera, but no satisfaction had been obtained, and proceedings were eventually taken to prosecute for theft. Mr Hainerton, for the defence, contended that the prosecutor was too drunk to remember how he parted with his watch. He had doubtless raised a few shillings on the watch from a man who went to Hawera, and the prisoner advanced 15s to that man for the watch, and so was found in posession of it. Mr Taplin deposed that about a year ago the prosecutor offered a watch for a loan of half n crown, while drunk. T. Kells deposed to the same effect, and said the prosecutor often went into Mr Taplin’s store when drunk. Prisoner said he went to Hawera, to Manaia, and to Normanby in search of the man from whom he had got the for 15s. At Normanby he was told by Mr Brett that a man answering the description had cleared out the previous night. Spent four days looking for him. The Sergeant said, so far as he could learn, the prisoner had got some money from Mr Erskine and made a holiday in Hawera. The prisoner had not applied to the police there, nor had he given any description beyond saying he had sandy whiskers. The Magistrates, after retiring, said there was a doubt whether the watch was stolen, as the prosecutor had repeatedly pawned it ; and there being nothing known against the prisoner, he would have the benefit of the doubt. Case dismissed. The watch was returned to Colvill. The Toronto mentions a dairy where the churning power is supplied by a black bear of 100 pounds weight, which seems to really enjoy the treadmill, and always when the butter comes gets a pan of milk as a reward for his faithful tramp. Mr Charles Parkinson, an old settler died at Wanganui on Saturday, aged 62 years. The deceased for many years was connected with the local press, but some twelve or thirteen years back gave up newspaper work and essaj’ed farming in the * Turakina district, but has latterly resided in Wanganui.