RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1212, 28 November 1882, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

This Day. fßefore M. Price, Esq., R.M.] STOWAWAYS. John Smith and James Watson were charged with secreting themselves, under the 140th section of the Merchant ami Shipping Act, without leave. As Mr Fraser, the agent for the Union Shipping Company in Gisborne, stated there was no further evidence to produce, ami Sergeant Bullen also informed the Bench of this fact, the two men were discharged. Claim, £3O 10s 10d, for work done and material supplied. Mr McDougall appeared for plaintiff : Mr Kenny for defendant. The defence was, not indebted. Mr McDougall called the plaintiff, who deposed that he had entered into a contract with Mr Berry to do certain work at the Argyll Hotel, and that he had not been paid for it. He had had several interviews with defendant on the subject. The contract wa i

fm’ £'*24o, and lie had shverdl pay ments dn account, leavPig a balance due of £3H JOs JOd. He now claimed the balance. (The witness here went into a detailed statement of what had occurred between hinisclf and defendant, with reference to the contract.) This was all the evidence for the plaintiff'. , Mr Kenny then called the defendant, W. Adair, who stated he was a merchant in Gisborne. Mr Berry had entered into an agreement with him to erect the Argyll Hotel. The specification produced has been altered. He never entered into any contract with plaintiff as to the work to be done at thb hotel. He (witness) said he \Vould see that plaintiff would be paid for the labor done. Plaintiff said he would not go on with the work. The memo, given by plaintiff to supply the iron was from Mr Berry and not from plaintiff. All work done by Mr Berry has been paid for. Witness looked upon MiBerry as the contractor, and Mr Finneran as the architect. Mr Berry was to find the iron. He (defendant) charged Mr Berry with the i iron, sold any iron to plaintiff at all. At i'hE interview between plaintiff, Berry and himself (witness) he did not recollect the amount for the iron, and whether the amount ! was stated to be £240. Witness had nothI ing to do with plaintiff’s contract, although I he asked him the amount of his contract i with Berry. The iron was charged to Berry, Plaintiff never ordered aiiv iron from him | (defendant). If plaintiff says So it is all nonsense. Witness guaranteed the labor would ! come to about £6O; This was in Mr Berry’s I presence. Witness told plaintiff that if he I did certain work he would see him paid, but without prejudice.

C. D. Berry called, stated he was a contractor in Gisborne. He contracted for the Argyll Hotel. Plaintiff asked him to go in and see defendant. Saw Mr Adair, A conversation ensued as to the plumbing work of the Argyll Hotel. Defendant debited witness with the iron. Plaintiff was working for witness. Witness said plaintiff was working for me. Witness considered that he was liable to plaintiff for the work done, in the first instance and not defendant.

Cross-examined by Mr McDougall: I accepted the contract first read, written by plaintiff, to supply the iron in question. 1 was to supply everything, and I sublet the contract for the iron and plumbing work for £240. Defendant has charged mo with the iron in a running account with me. Plaintiff was to supply the iron himself Defendant said he preferred charging the iron to me as it was a running account. The question was left an open one. Plaintiff went on with the work and procured the iron, recommended plaintiff to go to defendent for the iron to complete the contract. I had not become liable to defendant for the iron. Plaintiff wanted a guarantee from defendant as to the amount of the subcontractor let to defendant, but I could not say what took place. I gave plaintiff one order on defendant for this work. 1 have paid him other moneys on other works. The account produced is from defendant to me for £1443 JBs 2d. The account shows a charge for the iron against me of £154 9s 2d. 1 did not buy the iron from defendant, although it is charged to me. Defendant agreed to supply all the material for the building of the Argyll Hotel at the same prices as we could get them anywhere else. 1. have never gone through the items. T have not gone through the items. I had a subpiuna, duces to produce the account produced. I had no conversation with defendant about supplying the iron. By the Bench : The plaintiff has completed his contract for me.

By Mr Kenny: I told plaintiff that defendant had some iron for sale. Plaintiff had to supply the iron. ]'y the Bench : I had an agreement with defendant to supply all material for this work. I did not tell plaintiff the conditions. The sub-contractors were bound to me as principal contractor, and they had nothing to do with defendant. Mr Kenny addressed the Court on behalf of the defendant, and Mr McDougall replied for the plaintiff. His Worship in summing up said this w as just one of those jumbled up contracts which led to irregularities. The contractor had proved unable to do the work and the defendant had entered into an arrangement with the sub-contractor. Mr Wade had a sub-contract and on a certain date stopped and took off his workmen. This was important, as it showed abandonment of thu contract. Then comes the conversation in Adair’s office. Here Berry’s evidence was of no value ; he had admitted hearing something about £65, and nothing further as it did not concern him. Mr Wade states that hovin£ given up the work he refused to resume it until he received payment. There is no doubt that Wade is entitled to the difference between the iron and the contract. Berry cannot corroborate Aduir’.s statements and the Court must, therefore, accept the statement of Wade as being correct. He wuuld therefore give a verdict for plaintiff for £3O 10s lOd, with costs £3 JOs. The case of Gould v. Rees was adjourned to Friday next by consent. Mr Kenny appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Brassey for the defendant. The case of Pahuia v. Harris was also ad jou.med on Mr Kenny's application, until i’rid.iy next, by consent of Mr Nolan, the sulicitor for the defendant, but without costs.