DISTRICT COURT.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2274, 1 July 1880, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

• v TIMARU—THIS DAY. [Before His Honor Judge Ward.] CIVIL CASES. Moore y. Marcroft, claim £2OO, damages, for non-completion of contract. There was also a cross action —Marcroft v. Moore —and it was decided by the learned counsel engaged, to take both oases together. Mr Jameson appeared for plaintiff and Mr Hamersley for defendant. Mr Jameson, in opening the case, remarked that his client had entered into arrangements with the defendant, in Jan. lasi, to do certain harvesting for him. The amount duo for such work was £IBO ; £2BO of which had on[y been paid, thus leaving a balance duo of £2OO. The defendant replied by bringing a cross action, alleging that the work had not been properly done and claiming £2OO damages, for noncompletion of contract. Jas. Moore, contractor, residing at Winchester, stated that in January last he entered into an agreement with Mr Marcroft to do certain harvesting. Began the work on January 21). Two machines were employed—a reaper and a self-binder. There were 14 men at work, and they harvested oats, barley and wheat, and afterwards stacked the same. The whole of the work was done by Mr Marcroft’s own instructions. He never raised any objections to the work, witii the exception of one occasion, when he objected to their stacking at night, as he thought they could not sec what they were doing. Witness asked the defendant for a settlement in April, and he asked witness whether he could not wait until after they hud thrashed. Witness offered to take half the amount due and let the rest remain. This money ho had not yet been paid, (Subsequently they commenced to cart the grain ; hut afterwards .Mr .Marcroft refused to lot ihem proceed with the work, and began to do it himself.

Clias. Bishop, contractor, stated tlial i< o hail been employed on Mr Moore’s contract. Mr Marcroft was often present when the work Avas going forward, and had several times remarked that it was being performed in a satisfactory manner. ilad they been permitted to do the work as quickly as it could have been done the crop cmdd have been preserved. Had seen other people cutting in the intervals that Mr Marcroft slopped them from work, Uy Mr Jlamerslcy—Have not been paid my money by Mr Moore yet. This is because be lias not been pressed for the money. Mr Moore bad told witness that Marcroft had complained to him about their being short banded, and had said that if they did not put on mure hands he would have to put on some himself, and charge them with them. Peter Billings, laborer, deposed that he had taken a sub-contract from Mr Moore for tying and stacking the crop belonging to Mr Marcroft. Mr Marcroft was often there directing the work. The crop was in good order for cutting when they commenced the work, but it got too ripe at last in consequence of a norwester coming. A good few days were lost by Mr .Marcroft slopping the work. The delay was also partly caused by the bad weather.

Edward Close, Joseph Bloomfield, and Win. Boswell, also employed by Moore, staled that Marcroft had constantly visited the farm, while the work was proceeding, and had ample opportunity of seeing the way in which it was being done. They had never heard him make any complaint.

This concluded the ease for the plaintiff. Mr Hamersley briefly addressed the Court on behalf of his client ; and referred to the damage done to the crop by the inefficient manner in which, the plaintiff - had performed (lie work. AVm. Marcrolt, the defendant, deposed to entering into a contract with the defendant to do the harvesting. The work had been badly done, the crop had suffered, and witness was consequently a very heavy loser. He had been compelled to Jiuish. the work himself.

[Left sitting.]