PUKEKOHE S.M. COURT.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 4, Issue 84, 17 September 1915, Page 3

PUKEKOHE S.M. COURT.

Thursday, September 16th, (Befure Mr F. V. Frazer, S.M.)

The following cases were de It with:—

A MOTHER SUED. Kobert Bebgie, farmer, Pukekohe East (Mr H. G. K. Mason), was given judgment, after hearing, against his mother, Mrs Margaret Bpßbie, for the amount claimed, £% ss, which constituted a charge made for board and lodging and other sundries, and Court Costs £2 12s, and solicitor's fee £3 Bs. PROHIBITED. Jam s Henrv, Mitchell, labourer, Fukekche, pleaded not guilty to a charge of using obscene language in King street on the 13th inst. The accued stated that he was drunk on Ue occashn referred to and- knew nothing of the incident until he received the summons. .Corstable Thorntll spoke to having been approached ry two residents in King street at 9 pm. on the night ot the 13th lost., who complained of the language defendant was using. He listened and heard bad Isnguage and going into defendant's residence found him to be drunk. Edvidenci was also given by Sergeant Cowan, to the effect that defendant's trouble was liquor, End that he had been prohibited once. He abused his wife and had two children in an Industrial School. A prohibition orcieTr, the Sergeant said, would not do him any harm The MogisTate said it was no exaggeration to call defendant a waster. He had a fairly lengthy record. The present offeree constituted h'lß eleventh charge, and the fifth for obscene language. On the last orca'ion he was sentenced to three months' hard labour. For his wife's sake he would not be sent to gaol, but would be convicted and ordered to come up for sentence when called on. He would also have, to pay court costs 11b and witnesses experses Bb, an;i would be prohibited, the order to start from the 16th inn and to continue for twelve months throughout the whule ot the Dominion. He would aho have to report himself daily to the police for six months. ■ Defendant t :ok exception to the lust proviso, and assuming a defiant attitude remarked: "1 might a<* well be a convict. You on stick ma in," meaning that he would prefer to go to gaol. The Magistrate rebuked defendant by pointing out that be was liable to twelve months' impmonment.

A BUILDING DISPUIE. A claim arising out of a building distpule in which S. H. Gallagher, motor garage iroprietor, of Puke- I keohe (Mr C. 0. Mahony). appeared as plaintiff and William Mills, horse dealer and farmer, of Kaipara Flats, late of I'ukeknhe, occupied the Magistrate's attention for some hours. The claim was for £l6 5s H the balance of contract l monry said (o be owing to plaintiff for labour in connection with the building of a housa which he partly erected for defendant. Plaintiff stated tint he entered into a font-a:t t> build a house, labour only, for defendant. He was a contractor at thit time and a formal agreement was drawn up bv Mr C. K. Lawrie, but was either lost or burnt in the tiro that destroyed Mr Lawria's office. The price was to be £3O, and he started to work on the building on the 3rd December, employ kg another carpenter by name, Leslie Howr, to assist him. He was to be paid by progress payments and received two cheques, one for £7 10s and the othrr for £7. Two days at'ier starting the work ceased, owing to a shortage of timber, and from that time on be was continually shipped owing to the same difficulty. There was secondhand timber on thi job, but a lot of it was not fit to use. He asked defendant on several occariuns to remedy the trouble, and the defendant promised to do so, but only small orders came to hand and the old trouble re-occurred. During some of the time on the jub he and his man dressed 230 1" it of timber and did tonm work in a stihl<? for defendant, toth jits being extras. The timber that came on the job was supplied by Mr Comrie.fand he used used to go to his store for further supplies, but Mr Ccmrie nculd not let it go out without Mills corroborated the order. He t ; red ot asking the defendant and Mr Ctnvie for tibrr.er. On the sth Manh he asked defendant fur a furthre payment, and defendnt said that plaintiff would not get any nior; money until the building was completed. He replied that he would not continue with the contract and he left the building. Five days later he received a telegram in anwscr to rcprrsi mations he made to defendant's wife, stating that everything was all rigiit. purporting to mean that he would get the balance of the money due to him. Directions were also given t> get the timber required from Mi L'omrie, but on presenting it &V Comrie refused to comply wiih the crdcr. When he left the job the woik undone-two ecili g", t*r.'C r:iors, skirting, etc. -wiuld have only taken two nicri two or tlree days to finish. On tic iiiStli March be icccivtd a week's notice from defendant to compute the coi tract, and ttatirg that if be did ret defendant would take slept* ti have it cumpltt d He would have gonu rn with the werk on the 3rd of April when he re-visited the jib, if there had been timber un the grrund, but thiire was not. Up till tie 2:Jrd January he worked on the building 183 hours and from thai date until he left tv»ent> live aid a-half hcuis. There was no stipulated time in which the contract was to fie finished. Hy deieidunt: He did nut undertukc to finish the contract with the old timter Uiat was on the ground, but only to utilise tfat which could be uaed. t'e was iot away from the job for two or 'h:ee wciks before Christmas. Hy the Magistrate: Ho left the j,u oo the 2V\\ Decembfi*, owing to the nho tn ss of timber, and did ml return a?ain until fie 4th

January John AUxat.d.'r Connie, ot AiicMind, tx-motor K»r»ga proprietor, said thit hi supplied timticr odt Oi.um t in largo and small lot', .ird with He (xceplion of a lew finall lots defend ir,l hnd to pay rath hffnre pel i:ia d' livery. I'laintiii came h> him on -<pvernl occasions In nr-lcr timber. but witness would tot i| ply without the cash.

By defendant: tie gave defendant an estimate for the weather boarding and flooring that would be required lor the building, and defendant paid him accordingly, and it was delivered. Unless something apecial was required en the job at the start, a man should not have had occasion to cease work within a week. There were blocks in the shed when he went over it.

Uy the Magistrate: Plaintiff told witness at one period that he was stopped [from proceeding through the luck of a timber supply. He supplied £3 worth of ceiling battens for the job after plaintiff lift it. Two men should have be: n abla to

complete the balanc? ot the work "left to be finished when plaintiff left the jo 1 ! in three days. By Mr Mahony: The weather boarding that wits used on the jib was only fit for lining. L?slie Howp, carpsnter, Patumahoe, Btated that he was employed on the buildirg by plaintiff. From Christmas ihey wera continually short of timber, and never received a full cider. Tha second-hand timber from the old Bhed was no good, but that from the stable was good. The bad timber was discarded.

Defendant stated that when he first approached plaintiff for a price to erect the cottage he asked £4O, but £3O was agreed on, and the agreement was made out and kept by Mr Lawrie On three occasions plaintiff left the job, once lor three weeks at Christmas time aid on another occasion to erect a slaughterhouse for Mr J. Beatty. In the meantime the timber laid out in the bun, and was buckled when it was to be used. Plaintiff complained to him that the job was too dear and asked for the balance of the contract money, £ls 10a and witness replied, "What ro you take me for?" The letter in which he gave plaintiff one week's notice ti comdete the job, failing, which he would employ other means, wss written on the advice of a solicitor. He empldyed two carpenters and a painter from Auckland to finish the job.

By Mr Mahony: He left a cheque for the balance of the contract morey with Mr Lawrie, who was to date it and give it to plaintiff when he finished the contract. Plaintiff knew of this. Plaintiff told him that it would only take five or six weeks to erect the cottage, but through leaving it to his apprentice it had taken between five and six weeks. The men witness cmployed had to re-do bad work that plaintiff and the apprentice had done.

John Henry Stiles, carpenter, of Auckland, dtposcd that he was 'cmpolyed by defendant to complete work on the buildi g. Defendant told him tbat he hal bad trouble with a carpenter. lhc work he helped to complete was the erection of two ceilings, mantlepieces, wainscoating, caps on the roof, and the hanging of windows which also had to be glassed. He also asaisted with the scrimming end papering. Four doors had to be taken off and re-hurg, the verandah had to be ahifted and seven sheets of iron put on it. By Mr Mahony: The secondhand timber on the job was good. The Magistrate, in summing up, said that there had been an unfortunate delay jver timber. That plaintiff did his b.st, Mr Comrie's evidence clearlv showed. The only question was the amount that should be allowed to plaintiff. Thsre was a great difficulty in assessng how much work was left to be done when plaintiff left the job. He would accept Mr Comrie's evidence in determininp that point. Taking into considera'ion the cost of completing the work judgment would be for plaintiff fo; £l3 lis 9d, with Court costs £1 10s, witnesses' expenses 12s, and solicitor's fee £1 6s.