Action for Contempt of Court Threatened

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 808, 31 October 1929, Page 1

Action for Contempt of Court Threatened

SOLICITOR^REBUKED CONDUCTING OF CASE Threats of committal for contempt of court were made by Mr. S. L. Paterson, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court this morning when Mr. I. J. Goldstine, for defendant in the case before the court, refused to sit down after being told to do so. Mr. Goldstine appeared for Bartly Hendl, of Orakei Road, a Public Works contractor, who was sued by Daniel j Torpy, a contractor, for £143 11s 3d. The claim rose out of work done by plaintiff on the Westfield railway deviation at Campbell’s Point. Mr. ! Bone appeared for Torpy. Plaintiff's claim was divided into I three sections. He stated that he had agreed with Hendl to shift certain soil , at Is 6d a cubic yard. In all 2,921 j cubic yards had been shifted, but he : had been paid for 2,300 yards only. 1 The other 624 yards had been shifted 1 at defendant’s request and with his knowledge, leaving a balance of £46 14s owing. There was a further balance of £49 15s 2d in respect of the spreading of I,SOO yards of soil, for which he was paid £4O 4s lOd, the | agreed amount working out at £9O. i The third item of £47 was claimed on ! the ground that defendant had pre- ] vented plaintiff from fulfilling his j contract thus depriving him of his j profit out of the remainder ot the soil to be spread. Mr. Bone submitted that, when plaintiff had gone to work at Henderson with permission, Hendl had had the spreading finished himself. After explaining points connected with the claim, Mr. Bone said that it might appear that there was a doubt whether the work was done by contract or day labour. Torpy was certainly on the time book, but that was purely a question of arrangement. The wages of Torpy’s man. “Joe/* had been debited to Torpy, as also were the expenses of his team.

Torpy then gave evidence on the lines of counsel’s statement, and Mr. Goldstine cross-examined at length. Mr. Paterson, immediately before adjourning for lunch, suggested that Mr. Goldstine reconsider the lines on which he was conducting his case. CASE NOT OPENED Mr. Goldstine: But T have not opened my case yet. How can your . Worship know on what lines I am proceeding? The magistrate said that he could tell by counsel’s cross-examination on what he based his case. His examina- j tion of Torpy had suggested that he j was basing his case on a contention that the work was done by day labour. The fact of the contract was established and, unless counsel could call witnesses in support of it his crossexamination was most improper. “Seeing that I have not yet opened my case, I consider that your Worship is adopting a most improper attitude/’ countered Mr. Goldstine. Mr. Patterson: Will you sit down. Mr. Goldstine? Counsel refused to sit down and the magistrate asked Mr. Bone, solicitor 1 for plaintiff, to fetch a bailiff. Mr. Bone left the room but returned shortly saying that there was no bailiff to be seen. Mr. Goldstine, still on his feet, com- : menced to speak once more but the magistrate interrupted. “If you don’t sit down I shall com- ; mit you for contempt of Court,” he | said. After a further explanation of his ] reasons for suggesting that Mr. Gold- : stine reconsider the lines of his defence, Mr. Patterson allowed counsel to speak. Mr. Goldstine admitted the contract, but urged that it was terminable at a day’s notice and that Torpy knew that to be so. The luncheon adjournment was taken immediately after Mr. Goldstine resumed his seat.