RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1275, 14 February 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

Yesterday, fßefore M. Pricb, Esq., R.M.] . Thi following is the continuation of th® Resident Magistrate’s Court yesterday . bee v. m‘kay. Cross-ex Amined by Mr Finn j It was sotiM’ time in September, 1882, when I became defendant’s agent. It was after he bought th« run and before he went south. I. was not ft partner aor had I any interest in the rurt previous to the buying of it, I had no interest in the run at all. Bee and I were pfeBee’s house when defendant agreed to give £B5 fo r the building of the house. I believe the plan produced was the one shewn by Be/j to defendant, who said that it was just th® O ne he should like, and he would havy. a building like it built for £B5. The timber was supposed to be cut on the run, y*.it afterwards it was agreed that the timber /should be got in Gisborne, and not tn wait to ' have it cut on the run. This was in Sept. Defendant gave me £2O to pay my expenses as his agent, and not for getting timber. It was aftr the 12th Sept, that I got th© £2O. After defendant agreed to give me £B5, I received a letter from him. I did not tell Bee that he was not to go on with the work. Bee said that he would go on building the house according to the old plan, and that alterations could be made until further instructions came. Defendant was to pay ! me commission as agent. I did not act as • his friend. 1 cannot afford to do so. Defendant repudiated everything. I got a letter from defendant about 22nd Nov., to say that I was not to act as his agent any longer. After defendant came back from Napier I ceased to give orders. All that I have sworn to is to the best of my knowledge all true. By the Bench : 1 was defendant s general agent in September, and continued so until the 22nd of November.

The Court adjourned until one o’clock. On the Court resuming, George F. Gregory was called, he said he was a carpenter, residing in Gishorne, and knew the plaintiff and defendant. He was employed as a carpenter by Mr Bee, at Raey Station. They first started to frame the building, which took 12 day. They then waited two or three days for defendant, and they then went splitting blocks. They were idle for 10 or 11 days, because they did not know where to put the building. Defendant afterwards showed us where to put the building. On a site which he picked out. Defendant put the pegs in on the new site, and helped to carry the frame. The defendant wanted the verandah altered, but when Bee told him that all the material was ready, he said never mind. The building was built in accordance with the alterations ordered by defendant. He (witness), saw defendant about getting the bricks for the chimneys and also the shingles. Defendant when he came up told me to stop the bricklayers and the chimneys. McKay told myself and Sutherland to get any materials required for the station and said that he was entirely in Mr Suther land’s hands. Cross-examined by Mr Finn ; When I first went up there was some scantling up. Defendant did not suggest the site. Defendant told Sutherland to get what he liked for the house.

This closed plaintiff’s case, Mr Finn called the defendant, George Forbes McKay, who stated ; I am defendant in this action. I saw plaintiff in Napier, and told him I wanted a specification for building a house, the plan of which I showed him. The whole lot come to £B3, ' I asked Bee what the labor would come to without the timber, and he said it would come to some few pounds less. I had no agreement to give plaintiff £B5 for the building. I signed the agreement to purchase on the 12th September. It was agreed that Sutherland was to go down to start the sawyers to cut the timber, and I gave him £2O for this purpose. I wrote the letter produced dated 20th Sept., 1881. After I wrote the letter I altered my mind as to the arrangements. Sutherland was not my agent when he came to Poverty Bay I never recognised him as my agent, Sutherland came with me to Gisborne in the first week in November, but was not my agent; he was acting for Irving and Davidson. After being here for a dav or two I went up to the Roay Station. I went up to get delivery of some sheep. I altered the site of the housea small way from the original site, and helped the carpenters to move the frame. Sutherland said he could not get the sawyers to work, or something to this effect, Sutherland gave me a list of the timber in order to make up the quantity. 1 never authorised Sutherland to act as my agent, and never authorised the buying of timber by him. Cross-examined by Mr Nolan : I never teknowledged Sutherland as my agent at all. The purchase of sheep and the employment of sawyers were the only things that Sutherland was authorised to do by me. He was only to get timber cut for the house, and the only reason why he wrote the letter was so that there should not be more timber cut than necessary, I knew the timber was ordered from some sawmills. I saw Mr Berry’s clerk, and referred hitn to Messrs Kenny and Finn. SUTHERLAND V. A. F. Mc’XAY. Claim £27 I4s, for cartage and money paid also commission. Mr Nolan for plaintiff, and Mr Finn for defendant. J. K. MORGAN V. A. F. MCKAY. Claim £46 1 Is 3d, for timber. Mr Nolan appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Finn for defendant. J. R. HURREY V. G: F. MCKAY. Claim £42 0s 3d, for timber. Mr Brassey for plaintiff, and Mr Finn for defendant. Judgment reserved until the remainder of the cases were heard. Tnis Day. L ARCIN Y. Kapia, a Maori, was brought up on a charge of larceny, and remanded for eight days. J. K. HURREY G. F. MCKAY. Claim £43. Mr Brassey for plaintiff, Mr Finn for defendant. W. J. Quigley was called by the plaintiffs Counsel, and gave his evidence with reference to the question ordering the timber. On the Court resuming, at two o’clock this afternoon, His Worship gave judgment in the following cases :— BEE V. M*KAY. Claim £lOO. Judgment for plaintiff for £96 65., and costs, £lO 14s. Mr Finn, on behalf of the defendant, gave notice of appeal. In the case of Hurrey v. McKay judgment was given for £42 0s 3d and costs. In the case of J. R. Morgan v. McKay, claim £46 Us 3d, there was £l4 paid into Court. [The case was proceeding when we went to press.]