R. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 103, 9 April 1884, Page 2

R. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

(Before J. Booth, Esq., R.M.) TUESDAY. HALL V. POLLEN. Adjourned by consent till Wednesday morning, the 9th inst. DEVERY V. DWYER. Adjourned till Thursday, 10th inst, TAITAPONUI V. A. NEWMAN. Claim, £6 6s. the value of 63 wooden posts. Mr. McDougall for the plaintiff, and Mr. DeLautour for the defendant. After hearing the evidence, his Worship nonsuited the plaintiff. CHRISP & MUIR V. J. F. CRAWFORD. Claim £4 4s. 6d. Mr. Robinson for defendant. His Worship granted a nonsuit. DOLEMAN V. COMMON SHELTON, & CO. Claim, £6O for the supply of 8,500 bricks, and damages for the non-acceptance of the balance 51,500 as per contract. It was agreed to take the cross-action, Common Shelton, & Co. v. Doleman at the same time, which was a claim for £l6 for breach of contract. Mr. DeLautour appeared on the plaintiff’s behalf. Mr. Brassey for the defendants, admitted the contract. J. Doleman—l authorised my son to sign a contract between myself and Messrs. C. Shelton and Co. (Contract produced.) Part of the contract says I should take goods, and I did so, for about the value of £3l 4s. After the contract was signed, I got the bricks ready. I had about 30,000 or 40,000 on hand when the contract was made. They were all burned. That is my delivery brick book (produced), and the carters sign it. I have not delivered any other bricks outside of this contract to defendants. 7,300 had been delivered. I arranged with my son to cart the bricks. The cost of cartage was to be 9s. a thousand. The labor came to about 16s. a thousand. I did not deliver all the bricks because the drays w’ere stopped. On the Ist March I heard of the drays being stopped. I got one letter before the drays were stopped, saying the bricks were unsound, asking me to take the bad ones away, and to deliver more daily. I got a letter a few days after asking me to come down aud get the question settled. When I went down Mr. Shelton did not tell me he would not take bricks.

He asked me why the bricks were not stacked. I told him I knew nothing about that. He said he did not know whether he could take the carter’s words with regard to the number. On the Saturday after I got another letter, stating that the defendants would not enter into another contract unless I would furnish first-class bricks. I don’t know whether any persons were appointed to go over the bricks. I could have had the balance of the bricks ready when they were required. My son told me he was stopped delivering the bricks. I went to see Mr. Shelton, but he would not speak to me. No one was appointed to take delivery of the bricks. To Mr. Brassey—l was not present when the bricks were delivered. I was not told by Mr. Shelton that the bricks were bad, nor did Mr. Skeet tell me so in the presence of Mr. Shelton. I did not say that I would not deliver better bricks. I did not reply to the letter of the 25th February, stating that they were about to enter into another contract, I understand the terms of the contract. When Mr. Shelton complained to me about the quality of the bricks I agreed to cart the bad ones away, but he stopped the drays. S. Doleman—l was authorized to sign the contract for my father. I made an agreement with my father to deliver them for 9s. per 1,000. I employed another carter—F. Morgan. On February 28th I first heard that the drays were stopped. I sent another load down, and Mr. Shelton threatened to sue the carter for trespassing. I saw Mr. Shelton after this, and he told me more was to be done about the bricks. I know a good brick when I see it. I told Mr. Shelton that we would take any bad bricks back again. We sent down some very good bricks after that. I had no interest in the contract.

F. McCarthey, carter, was working for Mr. S. Dolman, he was employed for taking bricks for Messis. Common and Co. After the first load Mr. Shelton told him not to bring any more. He went with more and put them on the ground. Mr. Shelton said that if heQame there again he would prosecute him for trespass. The bricks he carted were very good ones. F. Morgan gave evidence to the effect that the bricks he carted for Mr. Doleman were least the latter ones. The former ones were not. This was the plaintiff’s case. F. Shelton—l have inspected the bricks sent by the plaintiff, and they are of a very inferior quality. In consequence of a letter I sent to the plaintiff we went to inspect them, and I told him they were not of good quality. He said he could not, and would not, give any better. Therefore we refused to take any more. In February the plaintiff commenced to deliver the bricks. We entered into another contract. I have had the bricks inspected by skilled men, and they were found to be inferior. To Mr. DeLautour—Mr. J. Doleman told me that he could not and would not supply better bricks. lam not sure that I picked up a brick and said I would like them all like it. The plaintiff had some goods from us worth about £5O odd. W. O. Skeet—l am the contractor for the new store for the defendants. I saw the bricks delivered there, which were inferior in quality. I iaw Mr. Doleman, and he told me he did not intend to supply first-class bricks. To Mr. DeLautour—l have seen the bricks, and they are not of good quality. A. Taylor corroborated the former witness’s statement. H. Warren—l remember counting over some bricks for Mr. Taylor. Some of the bricks were good, others very bad. One thousand six hundred and fifty out of 7,375 were of bad quality. His Worship reserved his decision in order to look up authorities on the case. THIS DAYDRL'NKENNESS. Sarah Williams, for drunkenness, was remanded till to-morrow, in order that further evidence could be produced. ASSAULT. C. CAMPBELL V. G. BURNAND. The defendant was brought up charged with assaulting the plaintiff, and applied for an adjournment as he had only just got the summons. Adjourned till two o’clock to-morrow afternoon. G. HUMPHREYS V. B. C. FRYER. Claim £27 16s. for work done. Mr. Nolan, for the defendant submitted, that the particulars of the claim showed two causes of action, as two different accounts were made out, and not a running account. Mr. Finn, for the plaintiff, said he would amend the summons. Mr. Nolan said he was not prepared to meet the summons as amended. If there was one account, they could defend the case. They admitted owing £l4 135., but not the £3O odd. It should be a general account. Mr. Finn said the case should go on as it was, There was only one cause of action. Ultimately the amount of the one account was carried forward to the other, making ona general account. Judgment for plaintiff, with six guineas cost. [Left sitting.]