BULLS COURT.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXI, Issue 8780, 6 April 1907, Page 2

BULLS COURT.

FRIDAY, ‘APRIL oth. Before Mr Stanford, S.M

Judgment, by default was given in the following civil cases : —E A. McDonell v. To Kuma Penohira, claim £1 Bs, costs 8s , Jones and McGregor v. Charles Hordmau, claim £C 3s Id, costs 23s fid; Same v. O. Dawson, claim £5 Gs 3d, costs 23s 6d ; Same v. James Armstrong, claim £lB Ss fid, costs 23s fid; J. G. French v. W. Steiumuller, claim £1 12s 9d, costs 6s; Same v. Tarau Utiku Maramuru, claim £l3 14s 2d, tlfo amount to be paid forthwith, iu default one’ mouth’s imprisonment; Same v. L.Roach, judgment for 7s fid, costs 7s fid; J. B. Walker v. James Arm-; strong, claim £5 2s fid, costs 2Cs; Same v. James Better, claim £1 2s, costs 14s; Halloustoiu Bros. v. Tarau Utiku Maramuru, claim £9 12s 7d, amount to he paid forthwith, iu default one mouth’s imprisonment; Henry Moore v. Tarau Utikii Maramuru, claim £8 18s, to bo' paid forthwith, iu default one mouth’s imprisonment; W. J. Croucher v. J. Holland, claim £T 17s, an order was made for defendant to pay 15s a mouth.

Three parents were each fined 2s and 7s costs for failing to scud their children to school regularly. Henry Harman (Mr Ougley) v. Herbert Pryce (Mr Saudilands). This was a claim for £4, alleged to be owing on a firewood cutting contract., Defendant bad agreed .to pay plaintiff at tbo rate of £3 a day for the work, plaintiff to supply mb' plant and all labour. Evidence was given to prove that, including broken time, four whole days had been worked. Mr Pryco had then given the men orders to stop, and paid a cheque on account for £B. The present case was instituted to recover tho balance of £4 owing on the four days. Defendant’s evidence wont to prove that the amount of wood that was being cut each day was unreasonably small. After making allowances for the plant not being in good working order tho first two days and finding that he. was not getting good value for his money, he had given instructions for the wort to be stopped. He gave plaintiff a cheque for £8 on account, telling him that he did not consider that ho had earned more. They agreed afterwards to get an outside valuation of the finished work, the valuator to say whether Harmen was entitled to the balance claimed. Expert evidence was given by E. Thomas, who said that only a few cords of wood had been cut altogether and ho thought that plaintiff had been well paid at £B. In summing up His Worship hold that opinion also and gave judgment for defendant with costs £3 Is.