R. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 96, 1 April 1884, Page 2

R. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

(Before J. Booth, Esq., R.M.) TUESDAY. CROLL V. J. ALLANACH. Claim, £2 4s. 3d. No appearance of the defendant. Judgment for the amount and costs, Bs. WATTS V. CANNON. Claim £6 Bs., on a judgment summons. Ordered to pay £2 10s. down, £1 by the end of April, and the remainder by the end of May. RICHARDS V. DWYER. Claim £2O Bs. Mr. Kenny appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. H. J. Finn for the defendant. Mr. Finn called attention to the fact that there was no date to the particulars. Mr. Kenny said the date could easily be supplied, and was February 16, 1884. In discussing the set-off, he said the defendant could not be viewed in any other light but as a guarantor, and consequently it could not be taken as a set-off. The action was for breach of contract. F. Richards was the plaintiff in this case and remembered the conditions of contract with Dwyer, which was ss. 6d. per cord for cutting 100 cords of firewood, and he (witness) was to receive 75 per cent, progress payment. After a fortnight he (witness) had cut 51 cords, and asked for payment at the rate of 75 per cent, for work done. Mr. Dwyer put him off from time to time, and when pressed, told witness to go if he did not like it. On presenting his account Dwyer wanted to throw the whole of the cost of the stores upon him. On the bills being produced, he (witness) offered to pay 10s. per week off the account, and he (Dwyer) to take all the remainder of the stores over.

To Mr. Finn—Both agreed to cut the timber. C. Robertson has knocked off working. I swear we cut 58 cords between us. The defendant was to pay us ss. 6d. a cord. There was an understanding between us, but no written agreement. It was not agreed that the 25 per cent, was to go for the stores. Defendant did not supply us with goods. I did not tell defendant to pay Graham, Pitt and Bennett, or the Central Butchery. The writing on the document produced is mine. I charge there 6s. per cord because he offered it to me, that was before the contract was entered into. I put £4 6s. 9d. for my partner when I went for the wages. I asked defendant kindly for the money. I did not say that I would not trust him.

Mr. Kenny submitted that there was no partnership as the contract was made with witness. Examination continued—l had no other reason for leaving, because the defendant stopped me. James Comisquie and W. Callighan, stated having heard the arrangement. C. Robinson deposed that plaintiff applied to defendant for a progress payment, and defendant told him to make up his account and leave, there was hardly ss. due to him. The plaintiff took all the stores left over with him. He supplied the provisions. Plaintiff told him that he was going because he could not get any money. This was the plaintiff’s case. Mr. Finn submitted that the plaintiff should be nonsuited. They were sued for a breach of contract, and there own witnesses had proved there was none. Mr. Kenny submitted that the question was whether the plaintiff could recover on a quantuum meruit for the work actually done. After hearing further remarks from Mr. Kenny, the Bench nonsuited the plaintiff. RICHARDS V. DWYER. This was a cross-action, the plaintiff claiming £2 17s. for goods supplied. Judgment by consent for 14s. HEMI TAWHATA V. HAMI PAI KIA. Claim £l4 14s. for money lent. Mr. McDougall for the plaintiff. The defendant said he admitted the second and last items claimed, viz., £3. The plaintiff deposed that he had lent the defendant various sums of money. The first amount, £3, he lent in April 1882, the third amount, £lO, in September of the same year. He lent him that so that he could go to Opotiki. The defendant said when he came back he would sell his horses to pay He has given £1 6s. on account. He knew the paper produced, it was an acknowledgment of the debt £l4 14s. He had asked for the money often., [Left sitting.)