MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 17 February 1920, Page 6

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

eiv*fr%TTiNG

• (Before Mr. T. A. B. Bailey, S.M.). A sitting of the Magistrate's Court nt New Plymouth was held yesterday for the transaction of civil business, when the following cases were disposed of:—

Judgment by default was given for plaintiffs in the following undefended cases: Bellringer Bros., Ltd., v. Honi Rauri, £1 5s (costs 15s) ;""John V. Sheild (Mr. H. R- Billing) v., Bruce Joll, £3B 10s (costs £2 14s); Spedding fnd Stainton, Ltd. (Mr. C. H. Croker) v. Hukarere Harimata, £3 8s 6d (costs £1 4s 6d); same v. £4 7s 3d). HOTEL KITCHEN FLOOR; v ! CLAIM FOR REPAIRS. Arthur Haughey, plasterer, New Plymouth (Mr. C. H. Croker).claimed from Mrs. M-. McKean, licensee of the Criterion Hotel, New Plymouth (Mr. H. R. Billing) the sum of £25, as the contract price for re-laying a cement, plaster, floor in the kitchen of the hotel. The claim was subsequently reduced to £23, in consequence of some of; the work requiring to be done over again. This was necessary, according to counsel for plaintiff, on account of the limited time in which the work had to he done not allowing for the old surface to be picked off. Plaintiff deposed that' he gave defendant a quote for the work, which" Consisted of laying, a new cement plaster floor in the kitchen of the hotel. The only specifications laid down by Mrs. McKean were that the old .plaster was to ; be ■ removed and the new laid down to the same level, and that it waa to he tinted red. He completed a first-class 'job, and left instructions with the head cook that the floor was to be covered with planks of wood, and wet bags placed on the floor immediately in front, of. the cooking range to prevent the cement from drying too quickly. , He supplied the planks and the sacks himself. .The work wrs done between 2 p.m. on a Saturday .and C o'clock on the Sunday morning. Witness inspected the place on the Sunday afternoon rind found the boards down, but no sacks down, and there were boot marks aU over the floor, and the cement in front of the fireplace was drying too quickly. Two concrete steps were also broken away. He made another visit on the Monday morning and found the bags in front of the range were dry, and in the afternoon he thought they had been taken right away. He himself put down fresh bags. He repaired the steps and the boot marks on the floor. There was a portion of the floor in a recess which was coated a 'little thinner than the rest of the floor because time would not allow of the old surface being pinked off first, and this he was prepared to re-coat without additional charge, ,or allow £2 off his claim.

To Mr. Billing: He had no concreting to do, but only plastering- He paid the laborers on the job double time on account of the work being done, on Sunday. He had not been required to put down two inches of concrete and plaster over that. The workmen were all fober during the time the work was being done. Walking oh the floor before it had set would affect the whole surface. His opinion was that the floor never got a fair chance. It was walked on far toe soon after being finished. , Re-examined by Mr. Croker witness said he had been in charge of the plastering work on the new Parliamentary buildings for about two years. . None of t;he work there had been done over" againHe had been. in charge of other plastering work on big jobs in New Plymouth.

After hearing further evidence from workmen as to the character, of the work 1 carried out. and the cause of thf present condition of the floor, the hearing was adjourned till nex-t. Monday. McGINTY v. LAURENT. JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF. Counsel in the case of McGinty v. Laurent, in which the evidence was heard on the 2nd inst., addressed the BenchThe Magistrate said there, was a strong conflict of evidence between the parties and it was for the court to decide which was to be believed. He was of opinion that McGinty's story was the more- reliable, and he gave judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed (£ls) and costs (£4). '•• ■' ' HUNT CLUB TRESPASS. The action of Hamilton v. Mason (the Hunt Club), which was adjourned at the previous sitting in order to allow the parties to arrive at an understanding as to the amount of damages to be paid, was adjourned for a further fortnight.