SUPREME COURT.

Southland Times, Volume III, Issue 32, 20 January 1864, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

'civil sittings: . Monday, January 18th, 1864. . (Before His Honor Mr Justice Grosson* and juries of twelve. Puice v Cheynr and Another* 'Mr South appeared for the plaintiff ; Mr Macdonald for the defendants. In this action the plaintiff sought to recover £219 for repairs done to the steam vessel Aphrasia. It appeared by the counsel's statement in opening the case, that in the early part of 1863, there was acollision between the Aphrasia' and the Prince Alfred, by which the former vessel sustained considerable damage. The plaintiff had porformed some portion ol work to the Aphrasia— exclusive of that, which was ttie subject of the action which had been paid for ; but a second survey of the vessel having been made, it was found that some repairs was required for her stern. The survey having been made by Captains Burke and Hughes, along with plaintiff —who wns then performing the first contract for work to the steamer. — plaintiff undertook and completed the work. Tne plea raised by the defendants amounted to a general denial, and never indebted as to the amount claimed. Defendants admitted that the work had been done, but only to the extent of 4180, which amount they had paid into Court. The question, therefore for the jury to determine, was about the same which would he submitted to arbitrators, to determine the actual value of the work, after hearing the evidence on both sides. Charles Klwa>d Price, the plaintiff, gave evidence to the following effect: — He received orders from John Cheyne, one of the defendants, in the beginning of February last, to put in new top-sides, stanchions, anJ quarter badges in the stern of the Aphrasia. At the time he received those orders, he was at Work on the vessel^ under a former contract with the defendants. A survey of the work to be done — under the second agreement — was made by Captains Buikc and Hughes and plaintiff. Plaintiff had six men employed on the additional work. The six men. with plaintiff superintending, were engaged on the work for nearly two months. He paid them at the i ate of 17s per day. The charge of £204, for the work, was fair and reasonable. £15 was paid in addition for repairs to the ladies cabin. That work was orderfd by Mr L. Chejne, one of the defendants. When the Avork was completed and the bill was made out for £210, he ask- d Mr \j. Cbeyne when he would pay it, and he leplied he would do so wnen the Prince Al'ied'si owners paid him. Neither of the defen ants objected to the work at that time. No objection to the amount was made by the defendant, until plaintiff threatened an action in the Supreme Court to recover the money. Defendants could fee the work diiiy as it was being done. When he rendered the afcoiv.it, defendant s.iid they would pay it as soon as they recovered the amount fiorn the Prince Alfred. Plaintiff charged 2.js per d-iy for the men, in defendants account. By Mr Macdonald — Xo pnrt of the work on which the six men were employed was connected with the first contract oa the vessel. The timber for the ten planks used for the top sides, was worth about Llo. It ■would takefnur men about a Meek to put the quarter badges on. About 450 feet of cuulking ha Ito be June. The rv pairs to the Indies' c.ibin were not included in th« old tout a^t. William B irke, master manner, gave evidence thnt he made, with Captain Hughes aiid the plaintiff, n survey of the repair-* requ red by the Aphrasia in January, 18G3 ; the injuiies to bu repaired were, two planks on each quarter, started; two quarter badges, started from fistt-nings ; one pi ink on starboard quar-e>\ started ; one plank on port quarter, srarsed ; four quar:er-deck stanchions broken. That w< rk was not connected with thr- former survey. Witness saw the r pairs g"ing on by plaintiff's men Tmwght the materials require'! would be very trilling compared with the labor r.yuir d. Looking at the plaintiff's bill, he co it-idered that £1 20 would be sufficient to pay for the work, for which plaintiff had charged £204. Witness would nwt like to have to jiay such an amount. ; The 571 hours for which plaintiff churned for fiomsj the work, he consideied would be an unreasonable time. The vessel went one or tv»o trips while the repairs were going nn. Could not give an opinion as to the cost of the materials thvit would be required. Robert Harvey, a shipwright, who bad been employed by the plaintiff, was called, but his evidence, as to the exact value of the work done, was not verj' material. For the fViwe, Mr Macdonald called Leslie Cheyae, one of the defendants, whose evidence yes, ihat when the plaintiff rendered his account he stated he would not pay it as it was an overcharge, nnd added that he wou ; d have a survey of the vessel first. lie called in Kdwurd Kendall, a shipwright., win surveyed the work. The account oi plaintiff (which was giv> n thrnugh Mar. ing and Whiiton as agents for plaintiff ) only contained the amount of £204. He never heard of the £15 for alterations in the ladies' cabin until that day in Court. He never promised to pay the account. By Mr South — He would swear he never gave the plaintiff any orders in rcft-rence to the additional work in the ladies' cabin. About a fortnight after plaintiff gave him the account, he (witness) offered to refer it to arbitration. It was before plaintiff threatened legal proceedings, lie did not ';.give plaintiff notice that he was going to '' '-.have a survey of the work. He never said to plaintiff that he would pay the account when the Prince Alfred's people paid him. He never said a word to plaintiff about the Piince Alfred. He told plaintiff repeatedly tlaat he was going to h. Id a survey. Edward Kendall, a shipwright, had made a survey and examination of the work done, and considered that £80 would be sufficient to pay for the work done, as required by the estimate and survey of Captains .Burke and Hughes. John Grey, a shipwright, had examined the survt-y of works required. Thought that £70 would be sufficient for the work. By Mr South — Had not seen the actual work done ; only formed his estimate from the surveyor's report. Thought the work would not take one man more than thirty-two days. It would only require about 400 feet of timber for the work, at the rate of £1 5s per 100 feet. W illiam Moffatt, a builder and dealer in timber, cave evidence of the value of the timb r required by plaintiff, which would amount to about £6. Counsel having replied on the evidence, His Honor summed up the evidence carefully to the jury, who after a short deliberation returned a verdict for the plaintiff for £30 in excess of the £80 paid into Court. Smith v. Kaik-s and Cameron. Mr Weston appealed for the plaintiff; Mr • Macdonald for the defendants. This action was for the recovery of a piece of land held by defendants, under terms of an agreement from the original proprietor, who had subsequently mortgaged it to plaintiff. Before the case went to trial, the counsel agreed to take a verdict for the plaintiff by consent on the first issue, viz., the plaintiff's right to recover possession. On the second issue, as to the plaintiff 's title to recover the profits which had accrued on the land since held by defendants, it was agreed that the verdict should be for the defendants. The Jury were directed by His Honor to return their verdict in accordance with the consent arrived at. The Court adjourned to ten o'clock next morning.

Tuesday, January 11th, 1864. Lixd v. Cameron and Another. Sir Harvey appeared for the plaintiff ; Mr

Maedonald for the defendants. In this Case the plaintiff "brought an action of ejectment under the following circumstances. The defendant (Cameron] had' .leas&i the premises known as the Albion Hotel, Dee 'street, together with a portion of the land adjoining, facing Dee street. Subsequent to the defendant taking possession of the land, he had allowed an office to be built on a portion of it, facing Dee street, and which was occupied by Brayton and Company (Cobb and Company), as an office, and the land on which it was buill was the subject of action. The question fot the jury was whether the defendant, Cameron, invalidated the terms of his lease by sub. letting or parting with possession of the land to Brayton and Company without the permission of plaintiff ; whether, under such circumstances, the plaintiff was not entitled to < iect fie occupiers of the land ai\t recover possession. The evidence of the plaintiff merely went to prove the existence of the agreement, and the exact limits of the land leasvd to the defendant. Mr Brayton's evidence showed that the agreement by whicl: he held the land from Mr Cameron was not f very strict one, and had never been signed, No money consideration liail passed between them for" the occupation of the land as ai office, the defendant, Cameron, consenting U its occupation by Brayton and Company as i coach booking-office, for the benefit thai would be derived by the hotel from its proximity to the office. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff that the defendant had sub-let or parted witr possession of the land without the permission of the pliintiif, according to the terms of the lease : the plaintiff, therefore, being entitled to n?-take possession of the land. The Court adjourned sine die.