RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1380, 18 August 1885, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Qekaidihb—Monday, Aug. 17,1885. (Before H. C. S. Baddeley, Esq., R.M., Captain Temple, and Rev. Geo. Barclay, J.F.’s. CIVIL CASES. Dr Foster v, R. Burnett—Claim £2 2s. Adjourned, as the summons had not been properly served upon the defendant. Lorgelly and Wateruse v. J, Bull— Claim £ls 6s 6d. Dr Foster for plaistiffs and Mr White for defendant. E. Lorgelly ; 1 made an agreement with defendant on 6th May last to cut firewood —black pine at 6s per cord and mixed wood at 4s~and to clear the scrub of! the ground where necessary. Bull also authorised us to cut posts and stakes. There was no stated price for them, Charies Dubois and I made th* first agreement with Bull, and 1 was his partner. Dubois had a disagreement with Bull and left, and I took Wateruse as a partner. We cut 45£ cords of black pine, 30 cords of mixed wood, 900 stakes at 10s per 100, and 65 posts at 20s per 100. We have received £6 13s 6d by sale-of wood, authorised by Bull, and Wateruse received £2 16s in cash from him. We now claim the balance, £ls 6s 6d. Bull promised to pay it. He never came to measure the wood that was out. Thirty-six cords have been sold and taken away. Bull has disputed the amount, as he wanted us to clean the scrub; and he stated that the measurements were not correct. Cross-examined by Mr White: The agreement was that I was to cut the wood on the ■ same terms as Dubois. There was no stated quantity. We were to cut till we thought fit to knock off. We knew that Bull wanted the land cleared. Bull paid Wateruse at our request. Wateruse and I both asked Bull for the balance. He said he would send to Ashburton and get it, 1 know Parkham. He was not present when any agreement wa» made between Bull and I. To Dr Foster: The agreement was made on the Geraldine Racecourse on May 6th. Parkham might have been within hearing, but I did not see him. A maa named Pickett was clearing scrub for Bull while we were cutting wood. He began five or six days after we started. The scrub was not got for the purpose of making a road. Pickett was burning it. • —Wateruse corroborated the last witness’ evidence in regard to the agreement, and further stated ; I received £2 16a from defendant. I gave the account to Bull, and he said he would see if it was correct, 1 have not received any other money. Cross-examined by Mr White : I do not known whether Bull can read. I got a cheque of Mr Mitton’s for £2 16s from Bill. He said I was to give him 16* back. I did not do so. For the defence, Mr White called J. Bull, who deposed ; I cannot read writing. I made an arrangement with Dubois to cut firewood, and to clear the scrub as he went along. There was about 4or 5 acres. I took it from Mr Button to clear, and sub-let it to Dubois. He was to be paid when the work was done. I was to sell black pine at 11s, and wtixed wood at 6s, per cord, and to retain the amount received for wood as payment. 1 paid £2 16s to Wateruse when asked to do so by Lorgelly. Wateruse wanted £2, and he was to return the 16a. He did not do so. The greater part of the work is done. A man named Pickett was employed by me to pick out the best of the scrub to make a road, and to burn the rest. J am prepared to pay the balance when the work is completed. Cross-examined by Dr Fish : I made no agreement with Lorgelly. Dubois set Lorgelly on to work. 1 did not know the men had left off work. They have not gone away, I told them the ground was to be cleared. Lorgelly was to work on the same terms ns Dubois. F. Parkham : I am not a partner of Bull’s in connection with the work of clearing the bush. 1 was presentat an interview between Ball and Dubois. Bull agreed to give him 6s per cord for black pine and 4s for mixed wood. Ihe whole of the timber was to be cut. The scrub which was not fit for firewood was to be thrown in heaps. I know the land in question. I was there yesterday and *it was not sleurad.

Cross-examined by Dr Foster: I was not present at an interview between Bull and Lorgelly. The "greement I spoke of was mude between Bull and Dubois. This closed the evidence. Mr White pointed out that plaintiffs must prove that they were in a position to bring this action. It was proved by defendant that the agreement was made with another party. The agreement stipulated that the money was to be paid when the work was completed, but what money was received for wood sold was to be retained. The work was not yet finished and therefore they were not entitled to recover. Dr Fosier contended that his clients had proved that their agreement was to cut as much wood as they liked. What the terms of agreement were with Unbeis they did not know, and he should have been called in as a witness. His clients did not understand they were to cut the whole. The Bench held it vras quite clear that Bull would not have made the contract the plaintiffs held was made between them if he wanted the bush cleared for another party, when he was responsible for the performance of it to that party. He would nonsuit the plaintiffs. Solicitor’s fee, one guinea, would be allowed. The Court then rose.