MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2509, 5 April 1881, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMARir—THIS DAT. (Before R. Beetham Esq., R.M.) DBUNKENNESS. A first offender was fined os. T. Woods alias “ Yorkey ” was fined 20s with, the alternative of 48 hours’ imprisonment. CIVIL CASES. In the following cases judgment was given for the plaintiff with costs : Godby and another v. Eversleigh and another—£9 3s od ; Black v. Anderson —£B 8s Od ; James Burford v. Gr. R. Walsh—2 18s 9d ;J. R. Stansell v. C. Eeilly—£l 18s 2d ;T. Harney v. Thos. Buchanan—£37 Is 7d. Butler v. Eversleigh and another— Claim £9 Os 4d. Adjourned to May 3 by the Court. A. White v. Edmund Perry—£lG Is Judgment for £lO 11s. T. Roberts v H. Green—Claim £ls 7s Gd, balance of account due. Mr Hamerslcy for plaintiff. The defendant admitted ail the items with the exception of that £2O for preparing drawings and plans for dwelling house on Le Cren’s Terrace, and of this sum he would only admit £ls 15s, alleging that he merely ordered a sketch, and not a working plan for the house which lie had not decided upon erecting at the time, and he therefore objected to the £2O charged, as excessive. Several architects having been examined to give evidence as to the customary charges made in these cases, judgment was given for the plaintiff for amount claimed with costs.

David Corsair v. James Wiggins— Claim ill 10s.

Mr Haraersley appeared for the defendant. This was a claim for work done, and services rendered in connection w ith the erection of a concrete house.

The plaintiff said that he had taken a contract with the defendant for the erection of a house, and that the present claim was for work done on the building, outside the contract.

Mr Hamersley for the defendant said that that had to be proved, and added that there were peculiar circumstances about this case, and that he would prefer that it should be heard when justices were on the Bench with His Worship. The case was accordingly adjourned at the defendant’s request until April 12, when the defendant is to produce the agreement. James Wiggins r. Corsair, claim £3. Mr Hamersley for plaintiff. This was a claim for the restitution of a door (or its value) removed by the defendant from the house in course of erection referred to in the former case, and which the plaintiff alleged had been wrongfully removed by the defendant, he having no claim whatever to it. The defendant pleaded that he took the door in lieu of wages due and owing to him by the plaintiff. At this stage His Worship remarked that both the parties seemed to be labouring under a good deal of excitement about this case, and if they could not keep their temper sufficiently to give evidence, the case w r ould be adjourned until they were in a cooler frame of mind.

His Worship, in giving judgment, said that the defendant had no right to remove the door. According to his own showing his contract had been simply for labour. He had been entrusted with certain material to prepare and work up and was not justified in the course he had taken. He would therefore be ordered to give up the door and defray the cost of the action. Donahy v 11. Hoare, claim £4. Mr ifamersley for plaintiff ; Mr Jameson for defendant. This was a claim for work and labor done, the case arising out of a disputed contract.

Judgment was given for the defendant, the amount of a set off put in by him exceeding the amount of the claim. Bruce v. Sibley—Claim £IOO. Mr lleid for plaintiff ; Mr Hamersley for the defendant.

This was a claim for timber supplied by the plaintiff for the building of the Tekapo bridge [Left silting.]

A Well-kuun u General—General debility.