Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

CIVIL BUSINESS. A sitting of the Magistrate's Court was held yesterday, Mr. H. S. Fitznerbert, S.M., presiding. Judgment for plaintiff by default was given in each of the following cases:— Weston and Weston (Mr. w right) v. Emily Bilton, elaim £9 3s Cd (costs €1 Gs Cd); M. Jones (Mr. Grey) v. William Z. Wells, £3 6s (&s). A CARPENTERS' DISPUTE. Alexander R. Peddie, carpenter, sued Margaret Main, wife of another carpenter, for £6 17s Cd, balance due for work and labour in altering a c6ttage. Mr. Hutdhen appeared for plaintiff and Mrl F. E. Wilson for the defendant. Judgment was given for plaintiff for the £l6 17s Cd claimed,'with costs £2 Os Cd (including 10s Cd costs of a previous adjournment). . A BUILDING CONTRACT. Robert Coleman and Frederick Arthur Coleman (Mr. C. H. Weston) v. Louis Patterson (Mr. J. B. Roy). The plaintiffs claimed £2O, being the balance of the amount of the contract price and extras for additions to the West :End 'Nursing Home, belonging to the defendant. '

The defendant set up a counter-claim. ■He stated that the contract price was in all £261 10s 7d, of wliich amount the defendant had paid to plaintiff £241 lGs 7<l. He set up tlat the con-j tract contained a clause providing for completion of the 'work® - within five weeks from obtaining possession 61 the site, in default a penalty of £1 a .day to ibe paid or allowed to 'the defendant for every day, excluding Sundays, until completion. The plaintiffs obtained possession of the site on August 10, 11)09, but failed to complete, the works within the five weeks. On October notice was *given to them "by the architect on the contract that the, penalty would be enforced. Tfle wor}£ was not completed until February Mi.'The amount therefor payalble by the plaintiffs to the defendant, from October 6 to February 11, 106 days, was ,£106; but he claimed only £2o' in respect thereof. r

: The hearing of the evidence occupied the greater part of the; day; tlie principal point' made by the plaintiffs being that the defendants ordered several ''extras," which hindered . the work and caused •delay'. The Court adjourned, at 5 o'clock, and legal argument will be heard this morning.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TDN19100803.2.42

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 98, 3 August 1910, Page 5

Word count
Tapeke kupu
373

MAGISTRATE'S COURT Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 98, 3 August 1910, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 98, 3 August 1910, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert