RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1831, 20 December 1888, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(iEIULDINE--TOfiSDAy, Dec. 18, 1888,

[Before Rev. G. Barclay and U. W. Moore Esqs., JP's.] CIVIL CASKS. Geraldine Town Board v. W. —Claim £1 10s, half cost of laying a strip of asphaltin front of defendant's shop. . . '<.-•. <s / -i ■■■ > -i ' Mr F. Wilsrin Smith'for'plairitiff. ,l All witnesses were ordered out of court and hearing. This case was partly heard on the previous court day, when Mr C. E. Stierrat (clerk to the board), depose'd to -defendant authorising ihim to have the work carried out and defendant denied having given any such authority, but he had, on the contrary, ~, protested strongly against the' asphalt being laid, he having haid concrete laid at his own expense. Defendant stated then that he had paid Mr Sherratt £l, but said that he bad done so because; Sherratt was always bothering him for the money and not because he considered he owed it. It was simply paid to get rid of him. C. E. Sherratt, being sworn, said ■that Mr Mundel! (formerly _ chairman of'the Board), had said in his previous evidence that,it was the duty of, the clerk to, lay "before the Board every, month the amounts due by ratepayers for asphalt, as per,, resolution of the j Board. Since ttien lie over the minute book with Mr and it was seen that the clerk Was ] only required to lay before the ; Board a monthly statement of the rent owing. Mr Mundell had gone to Timaru that day (Tuesday), but had expressed his willingness, if it trere necessary, to J corroborate the statement of witness. Witness produced his monthly report book to bear out his evidence and also pointed out the lesolution passed, which referred to rents only. t:To defendant: It was not advertised that all accounts due to 'the Board must be paid at once.

Timothy Herlihy stated that he was engaged on 'the board's "asphalt works when the job was, done. His duty: was to lay the inside batten down the centre„.of the path. As the works drew towards Clark's, he eaquirsd of Mr Sherratt whether he should lay the battens past Clark's, the; same, as the other and was informed by Sherratt that.'.he. would see Clark and let" him (witness) know before he reached Clark's. Beached defendant's' before receiving word what to do, and so went past and began to lay back towards Clark's. Sherratt told him then, to qmbrace < Clark's frontage entirely.. Consequently put the asphalt in front of Clark's. Defendant made no objection whatever to witness doing the work. Had nothing to do with removing the concrete. Saw it before it was removed and it looked pretty rough. Believed both Sherratt and Clark were directing him as to where the asphalt should go; but he was under,the former's orders. To Mr Smith: If I had not,received any instructions I should have carried the inner kerbiag right on in* a straight line with the test, but the instructions caused me, to take the asphalt close up the building. To defendant: X ou were not there when I got the instructions but you were there 'when I put the battens down. Thomas Grindle deposed to being in the employ of the Town Board at the time. His ciuty was' t'o ; la/the bottom course of the asphalt and put on the top dressing. He removed defendant's concrete," and defendant made no objection whatever to his doing so or laying the asphalt. Was asked by defendant to raise the asphalt in front oX the door, and did so. To defendant: Tou asked me to raise the asphalt in front of the door, and then afterwards brought Mr Sherratt. \ Thomas Fyfe gave immaterial evidence to the effect that he was asked by defendant if ;he was going to have the asphalt laid,.and had replied in the negative on account of the cost. I Defendant, sworn, said he and the , witness Grindle were bad friends, and had been so for years, and he had. never spoken to him'till he found him knocking up his concrete, when he asked him who authorised him to do it, when Grindle raplied "Our boss, and what's that got to do with you." He had never spoken to him about raising the asphalt in front of the door. He had never given authority to do the work. To Mr Smith : I admitted last court day that I had paid £1 to Mr Sherratt. I paid, it because he was always worrying me to pay for the asphalt. He was always bothering me for it, and when he asked me for it, I said, "I don't see why I should, you did the work upon your own reaponsibiliiy." He said, " Doesn't a man .want something for himself." I then gave him a pound. Defendant called his daughter, a girl 13 years of age, but the Bench decided that her" evidence had no bearing upon the arrangements for the laying of the asphalt, and declined to admit it. W. Fly deposed to being in the , employ of ,the Town Board when the concrete was taken up. The concrete was , sloping outwards, and was highest, : near the window. It was broken up in removal. Round the door was a raised circle, and while'the concrete was being taken up defendant said—- " Don't break, this lump.against the door, as I want it for a step at the back door."

Mi' Smith asked for judgment for plaintiff on the ground that Mr Sherratt's evidence was quite clear, and bore upon it the stamp of probability. It was not likely he was going to do work he was not authorised to do when the gßoard would most likely come upon him for it. The Board's books showed the liability, and Mr Sherratt would not contract that liability unless) he was authorised to do so. The evidence of Herlihy and G-rindle showed that defendant made no objection to the concrete being taken up, and. his own witness (Fly) stated that jlefendani wanted' the large piece for h;a back dbbr. : At the last Court day defendant stated he had never received an .account for the work done, and yet he also stated on that day and againj at the time that he was constantly " dogged " for the money. The Bench said that upon the evidence given they must give judgment! for plajntifjj \ Defendant had admitted the" payment of £l, which admission was unfortunate for him. HeKhad also no receipt for this pound. The evidence was not strong enough on Mr Clark's side to prove that he made! any objection in a very, decided manner. Judgment was given for •theTamount claimed, with costs 16s, and witnesses' expenses £l. G-eraldtne Domain Board v. R. S. Cookj- : ~ Claim &15 15s, rent due for ile'ase of reserve No. 1624. ! ,; Mr| F. Wilson Smith for plaintiff. t{ -Judgment by " default for the claimed, The Court then rose. ',!:„'