Magistrate's Court.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVI, Issue 171, 23 July 1904, Page 2

Magistrate's Court.

Messrs 11. Horry and B. G Allsworlh presided over the Magistrate's Lourt yesterday morning. —Civil Business.— Butcher and Nesbit v. C. OliverMr Kerr for plaintiff. Claim £5 7s fad lor repairs to a trap. Defendant atated that the arrangement was £3 is (>o\ Judgment was given for plaintiffs for the amount claimed, cosls Bs, solicitor £1 Is.

Dr. Walker v. Martin.-Mr Weston for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed £4 5s and costs lis. T, S. Weston v. C. Sehultz.-Claiw £4 fis Mr C. H. Weston for plainull. Judgment for amount claimed and costs 10s.

,„ uA mery v ' W - H - Scott.-Mr Wnght for plaintiff. Mr Kerr Tor dctendnnt. Tho plaintiff claimed £4 (3s ad for doing work on a chimney lor the defendant.

The defence was that the work had not (been done in a workmanlike manner. The plaintiff gave evidence that no price had been fixed for the work. Tho work was done, and defendant agreed to pay for it. Subsequently he refused, on the ground that tho charge was too high, and full details had not been supplied. Ho was a bricklayer by trade, and had been 28 years at the trade. To Mr Kerr : He had obtained the material from Messrs Russell and Son, bricks, lime, and cememt, at a cost of £l. He had paid 8s 6d to Boon Brothers for a chimney pot. His own labour was worTli 28s and the labourer's 17s. The sand used was "ordinary sand," not from the VVaiwakaiho.

James Bernstein, labourer, gave ovidence that, in company with the plaintiff, ho had obtained a piece of mortar from tho chimney in question. This had been handed by him to Mr Boon.

John Boon, a contractor, of some ten years' experience, furnished an estimate of tho work at £4 16s 6d. Me produced the sample of mortar given him by the_previous witnoss ; it was good mortar. It was tho rule for the employer to allow tho contractor a profit on material purchased by him (or tho work. The sample of mortar produced t>y the defence was not a fair sample to compare, as it had not Ix-en set with \bricks. The defendant, Walter H. Scott, said he had arranged with the plaintiff to take down part of a chimney, rebuild it, and make a thoroughly good jab of the work, as the chimney had previously been cracked by an earthquake. ,Ho estimated that the work and material would have cost £8 l!is. He was a practical builder himself, of forty years' experience. He had taken a sample of the mortar left on tho ground. It was poor, and would not hold the bricks together in case of an earthquake. Tho chimney was unsafe now. He had not got value for £4 (is fid.

J. Y. Campbell, practical builder, produced o sample of mortar taken from the chimney. He said tihestufl soon fell away into Band, and was very poor. The rest of the work was well done. Tho chimney was unsafe, and should lie taken down. About 154 was a fair price for the work done. Ho would not guarantee any chimney to stand an earthquake. .lames Hosttord, bricklayer, gave similar evidence. There was no binding in tho mortar, and the chimney ought to be taken down. The sand used was too soft, and dirty. E. Hooper, a bricklayer, was of opinion that tho mortar was nearly all sand, about four of sand to one of lime. It was impossible for it to bind, and the chimney would have to he rebuilt. Counsel briefly addressed the court, and niter a short deliberation the justices gave fudgment for plaintiff, with costs 10s, counsel £1 Is, two witnesses Os each.