RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1673, 15 December 1887, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka—Wednesday, Deo. 14,1887. [Before J, M, Ollivier, Esq., E.M.] STBAT HOBSES. Edward Wilcocks was charged with having on the 6th December, at Orari, allowed one entire horse to wander at large on the public road. He was also charged with having committed the same offence on the Ist of December. 0. Bisset said that on the morning of the 6th he saw on the road three horses belonging to defendant. Amongst them was an entire horse. Wilcocks came up and asked where witness was going with them, and witness said he was going to the pound with them. The defendant then took a mare before them, and the horses followed him, and witness left them there. The entire was almost two years old. It was dangerous for boys and women to go along the road.

Trank Archer, Overseer to the Temuka Road Board, said that Penny’s road was a public road.

The defendant admitted the horses were on the road. Alfred Nicholas stated that he was

working for the Temuka Road Board on Dec. 1, at the crossing of Hawke’s road. Had a mare. Saw an entire horse on the road. The horse belonged to Mr Wilcocks. The horsa came

down and broke the rails, and the mare went away with him. Did not want the mare in foal.

The defendant was further charged with having on Dec. 6 allowed two ordinary horses to wander at large on Penny’s road. C. Bisset gave evidence to the effect that the two horses accompanied the entire.

ihe defendant pleaded guilty. He. was not aware the horses were out on the Ist, but could not say they were not.

His Worship recommended the defendant to make himself acquainted with the law with regard to keeping an entire horse. The offence of allowing the horse to wander was liable to a fine of £2O, but he would not inflict such a heavy penalty. For allowing the horses to wander he would inflict a fine of 20s, and for allowing the entire horse to wander he would inflict a penalty of 40s for each offence, making in all £5, together with the costs of witnesses. crvn cases. J. Mclnnes v. A. M. Clark—Claim £lO 16s 6d. Mr Hay appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Perry for defendant. Mr Hay, in opening the case, said it was a balance due on a building contract. While the contract was going on several alterations were made and it was for these the plaintiff was charging. It was more than a year since the work was done.

John Melnness: In September, 12 months ago, Mr Clark told me a job required doing at Eskbank. Took instructions from Mr Sutherland. There was nd specifications, but I was to send in specifications with my tender, as. other tenderers were doing. My tender was accepted. The work was finished and no objection was taken to it. Received £65 from Mr Clark as progress payment. Sent in, full account on the 29th Dec., and oh the 25th of January got £35. There was extra work done. Mr Sutherland promised that in consideration of doing soma work he would cart myself and effects to St. Andrews. Mr Sutherland declined to do so afterwards and I told him I would charge for the work. Had no other dispute about the work, and never heard any objection was taken to the work. No ope has pointed out anything wrong with the work, bqt Mr Sutherland said the corbels were not right. They were not according to specifications, because Mr Sutherland ordered them to be altered.

To Mr Perry: The specifications required the best material. The sheep pens were required to be 4 x 4, but were put in as 4 x 3, in compliance with Mr Sutherland’s instructions. Complied with specifications as regards the corbels except where Mr Sutherland ordered me to change them. The

verge board is according to specification. Seven months after Mr Clark complained something about it, but what he complained of could be remedied in about 5 or 10 minutes. Mr Clark did not say he would not. pay the £lO when he paid the last cheque of £35. He said he had paid all he had agreed to do, and that Mr Sutherland was responsible for the balance, as he had ordered the work to be done. Had not the 4x4 sheep pen posts on the ground, Was screwed down £B, and they told me that the change from 4 x 4 to 4 x 3 in the sheep pen posts would be a saving. To Mr Hay; Mr Clark never asked me to go back and put things in order. Alfred Nicholas: Was working for Mr Mclnness at Eskbank. Heard Sutherland say that if he shortened the corbels, he could put in more piles. To Mr Perry: I know what a corbel is. Was using the screw-jack, and was helping to cut up timber. Am not a carpenter.

Mr Perry opened the case for the defence, which, he said, would be that the work was badly done, and the specifications were not adhered to. A. M. Clark, manager of Eskbank station, stated: Went to Eskbank once while the work was going on and on the day after it was finished. Spoke to the contractor and said he would not finish the work within the time. Was dissatisfied with the work. Ground plates are 5x3 instead of 6 x 3, top plate 5x2 instead of 6x 2. Spouting nails are 6 feet apart, and in some places 7 feet 6 inches apart. There is l£in between the barge board and the iron. Mr Sutherland is an Overseer acting under my instructions. The work was badly done. Kept back £lO on account of the work, and told the contractor I was dissatisfied with his work. On one occasion he came to my office, and I told him I would not pay, and told him to walk out of the door. He then summoned me. Think it would cost £l2 to £ls to put the work right. To Mr Hay: I could not say that I told him in January that I would not pay him. I told him I would send the account to Sutherland to revise. I told him I objected to the barge board and the beam. Saw the work on the day after it was finished, but I cannot say that I complained of the work when I paid him in January. Owing to the corbels being short, the building cannot carry the same weight. David Sutherland, Overseer at Eskbank : Showed plaintiff the alterations that were required. Had occasion to complain of the manner in which the work was done. I complained that the corbels were too short. I never authorised him to shorten the corbels. I never altered anything. To Mr Hay: Had a dispute about taking-things to St. Andrews. It was before that I complained of the corbels. ' '

The witness was examined at considerable length. " Joseph Hampton gave evidence as to the length of the corbels.

D. West stated that on last Monday he inspected the building referred to. The specifications were departed from. The spouting was down in some places, and the new spouting is larger than the old spouting. There is a space between the iron and the verge boards, some of the corbels were only .'one foot long, and others eighteen inches. It would take a considerable sum to put in corbels now. The ground plates were 5x3, the sheeppen posts were 4x3.

To Mr Hay; The building was very fair for its kind.

After Mr Hay had examined the witness at some length without eliciting anything of any great importance on either side, the case closed. Counsel on both sides then addressed the Court, after which His Worship said he would have to give judgment for the defendant, as the contract had not been carried out in accordance with the specifications. Judgment for defendant with costs. W. Hopkinson v. J. Mclnnes-* Claim £2 6s 6d. Mr Hay appeared for the defendant and admitted the claim, but said he bad a cross-action against the plaintiff. John Mclnnes v. W. Hopkinson— Claim £2 10s. The plaintiff stated the amount was due for making a box and cash lent. The defendant denied that he had ever ordered the box to be made.

His Worship gave judgment for the plaintiff in both cases. Proprietor Temuka Leader v. GK Levons—Claim £3lss;

Mr Aspinall appeared for the plaintiff.

The defendant had confessed judgment for £1 18s, and claimed the balance had been paid by contra. The plaintiff admitted there was a contra , but did not know exactly how much it was., The defendant claimed £2, but he (plaintiff) would dispute that. Sooner than have any trouble about it he would allow £llos to be deducted from his claim in payment of the defendant’s contra.

This was agreed to, and judgment was given for L2 5a and costs. .The Court then adjourned.