MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2242, 25 May 1880, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMARU—THIS HAY. (Before R. Eectham Esq., H.M.) Civil. CASES. J udgment was given in the follow ing eases for Hie plaintiff b} r default, with costs ; —Cooper v. Ellison, claim £1 2s 7d ; Neill and others v, Lindsa} r , claim £ls 4s Gd ; Cronin v. Stevenson, claim £59 10s 9d ; Small and another v. Bellemiu, claim £lO 9s 4d ; Cowan and another v. Dawson, claim £ll 15s ; J ackson r. Anderson, claim £9 ; Jackson v. Hilton, claim £3 Gs 2d. Hunt v. Murplrjg claim £l2 Bs. Mr Jameson for plaintiff, and Mr Austin for defendant, who pleaded not indebted, the defendant having received no benefit. Thomas Hunt, staircase builder,stated that he was engaged in March last to

build one staircase at the price of £35 for the defendant. The defendant afterwards wanted two staircases built for the £33, and this the plaintiff declined to do, alleging that he had been engaged to build the one staircase only for that amount. The witness also worked for Murphy, the defendant by the day, and the present claim was the balance duo on 34 days’ work, at 12s per day. Had seen an agreement drawn up by the defendant when he .asked witness to make the staircases and was under the impression that it stipulated for one staircase and not two.

The defence was that the staircases were so badly put together that the work had to be all done over again, the contract having been re-let in fact to another man who had agreed to make them both for £35. The defendant also called some witnesses as experts to give evidence as to the faulty nature of the work, and stated that his agreement with the plaintiff had plainly stipulated for two staircases, and as he (plaintiff) read over the agreement he must have seen that two staircases were expected. As it was he had been put to considerable expense in consequence of the plaintiff’s neglect. His Worship considered that it had been shown that the work was defective. Judgment would be for the defendant with costs.

E. Stansell v. J. C. Fisher, claim £IG 3s 6d, balance of account due for newspapers supplied. Mr Perry for plaintiff and Mr Jameson for defendant. The claim was- for arrears duo for newspapers supplied to defendant as a runner.

The defence was that Fisher had been unable to collect monies due by his customers, in consequence of a notification warning subscribers not to pay him. Judgment for amount claimed. Execution stayed for a fortnight. Jones and another v. Hurcombe, claim £3.

Judgment for default. Turk v, Stephen, claim £1 ss. Judgment for plaintiff. White v. Southern, claim £l7 15s 9d. His Worship bad reserved his decision on this ease, heard at a previous sitting of the Court, lie now gave judgment for plaintiff with costs.