District Court.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVI, Issue 43, 20 February 1904, Page 2

District Court.

(Before €lis Honour Mr Dvetriwt Jndgo KoUle.) FRIIIAY, FEIIIUIAUY 19. J. 11. ColenJiy T. New Plymoulh Boroirgh Council. The court, resumwd on Friday morning*,, when the claim of J. 11. a.contractor, for XIOO payment for carting stonu to the borough council stone crusher, was continued. The following composed the jury Messns R. (.'. Clemow, F. Hoskin, ill. W. I'erry (foreman), J. T. Scanlon. Mr Malone a|>pearwl lor the plaintiff, innd Mr Uuilliaiu for the defendant. Air Malum, submitted issues logo Id-lore the jury, b»it hi* Honour, after hearing* them, refused, mid drafted fresh issues. '1 he issues suggested by Mr Malone read as follows : 1. ll»d Che defendants' engineer personally make any actual measurement or tally of Hire metal crushed by the defendants' rock-Mreaking machine out of stone delivered by the plai'iitifi (a) in whole, (b) in port; if so, what part ? 2. If he did not, did he (a) employ a skilled assistant or assistants to make such meaidureiuent, or tally in whole or in part *.' If only in part, then what part? What was the measurement or tally of such'part and what vras the occupation of such assistant or assistants and were .such assistants, H any, skilled in the measurement or tallying of stone ? ;' (b) act upon his o*ll a,'d«mellt or upon the judgment of another or others in giving the measiireuient or tally of the stone l.roduced since Dec. 17. 1902 as I'tfili cubic cards ? il. Did he do wnything more in givijig such mcji,siirement of lii.jij ci(jJic vuMtlK than add up the ejuantilies of yards or loads supplied to liiin by others V if he did, what did he do ? 4. Was it proved that there is any custom or usu-ge for an engineer acting under Urn provisions of a couiract such us that between the ■plain-till and the defendants to delegate the duty of making a measurement or tally to others ? 5. Were the following disclosed : (a) the particulars of each dray used in carting metal from the crusher ; (b) l|'*,*e capacity of each dray ; ami (c) the quinntity actually- carried by each dixiy ■? Had the eng*iue«r all such jiurliculurs, capacities, and quantities ? (i. What was the f-juantily of stone supplied and delivered by the plnintill to the defendants '? His Honour then drew out the ('«!- lowin*," issues, wliiili were put before the jury : "f. Hid tin, (dorough enguieei- compute the niiautity of crushed stone from the, rock-'breaking macJiiiie from Dec. 17, 1902, at libit J yards? ■>. Was such computation made partly from the tally ll.iokx kept by the at the works, and partly from the engineer's personal knowledge of the carrying- capacity of th* carls willed liook the broken metal from the crus'.er ? IS. What was the ipiuntity of stone actually crushed from Dec. 17, 1902? The answers of the jury were : No. 1, yns ; No. 2, yes; No.il, 1441 cirbic yards. On these findings .judgment was entered up for the defendant council, with costs £5 5a and witnesses' expenses.