MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 2, Issue 100, 10 June 1913, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Pukekohe— Timrsday.

(Before Mr F. V. F<a;er., S M.) .DEBT CASES.

Judgment wa3 given for the plaintiffs by default or consent in the following case*:Green and Colctrook v. W. Tai, claim £4 12s 6d, costs 17*. Same v. W. 'iaupo, claim £3l 2s sd, c:sta £7 14s. Wily and others v. W. Taupo, claim £7 lbs Bd, ccsts £1 8s Id. Same v. A. Lapwocd, claim £6 13s 81, cists £1 9s 6d, F. Perkins end Co. "v. Hy. ftliho Miro, claim £4 7s 2d, costs 133. 11. Graham v. D Gregory, claim £4 18s 4d, co3ls 153. W. Roulston v. W. Oldham, claim £4 15s 2d, cjsts 10s= WEIL-BORING DISPUTE. D. ,A. Pa*ken clamed from L. Waiters, the sum of £42 8s for toing a well on defendant's property at Aka Aka. Ou!lining the case fcr the plaintiff com el st>ted that his client cas a well-bcrer. He entered into a contract with the defendant to Lore a well for 23 a fGot. The arrangement was a verbal cne. There was nu aureeni nt as to the depth, nor was any df-finite supply cf water guaranteed Plaintiff proceeded, and b:twe n laO and 200 feet struck water. The fbw was about a galbn pe/ minute. Defendant was not satisfied with this flow, and at his request plaintiff continued boring and went to a depth cf 213 feet. where he broke his drill and declined to go further. There was no irciease in th 3 Eupply of water. Deferdant asked plaintiff to put dawn another boif, and he consented. It was arranged that the price shoull be half the amount, rrovic'ed to difficulties were e.countered; if there werj difficulties the full amount was to bi paid, A second bore wa3 put down and deferdant reached a rl.pth of 240 feet. Water was slruck at between 190 and 200 feet. The flow was slightly larger than at V e previous bore. Difficulties were encountered in putting down the bore. Defendant hsd not disputed the account at the time. Evidence in support of the plaintiff's casa was given by the plaintiff and C. boih witnessrs denying tast any mention of an artesian well haJ been made in the arrangement between tha plaintiff and the defendant. For tin defence it was contended that tnere wks a specific contract to bote an arles'an well. Etidence vvculd be called which would show that in this dis'rict an artesian well or bore was one which heaved up water spontaneously at a rat: of from 10 to 15 gallons per minute. That there wa3 no doubt an artesian well wa3 meant woul] ba clearly shown by statement made by the plaintiff in the presence of witnesses. So far as the fist bore was concerned by his own acti :n in comrEenci.g the s.cond b:re the plaintiff admitted that he had not carried out his contract and the defecdar.t had every right to expect him to carry cut a contract. If the contract «ut3 as stated, then the plaintiff had completid it when he struck the water in th* first b?ro and there was no need for him to have gone aiy further. But when defendant demurred the plaintiff went straight to another spot where water had been Lcated by another diviner and commenced work. la regard to the second bore the original contract stool to provide an artesian well. When 195 feet hid been rescind there was a small trickle cf water which would have increased had the plaintiff taken the pains to penetrate the sandstone belt which was known to exist and tjelow which wa3 plentiful water. The defendant was not satisfied with this trickle and said if the plaintiff would bore to a depth of 270 feet, £at which Bregonan had secuied a good flow, ha would pay the pl-;inti!f, "water cr no water," That the plaintiff elected to go on waa shown by his reactiing a depth of 244 te:t. PI .intiti submitted an oider <o defendant for wages, but the defendant refused, to pay this, and prior and after this Incident expressed dissatisfaction with tha work. Evidence would be given to show that when a trough was put in over the second bore it was necessary to make a slight excavation to permit of the water being got at. After hearing the evidence, the Magistrate said the ironsan.l in tha first bore was n«t an insuperable difficulty and as plaintiff had failed to penetrate it judgment would be for defendant. With regard tc the second to;e judgment was given for £2l Bs, Court costs £2 Is, witnesses' expenstD £3 6s 9d, solicitors' less £2 12s.