RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1911, 2 July 1889, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka—Monday, July 1, 1889. [Before Captain Wray, R.M.] • CITIL CASES. John Crow v. David Leach—Claim 5i fid. This case was adjourned from the previous sitting of the court, Mr Aspinall appeared for plaintiff. Clara Crow, wife of plaintiff, stated that Leach had called at her husband's place for skins, He had counted same, and found that there were 15. He said that ho could not give 2? fid eaeh for them. He would give 32« for (he lot. He told her that her husband had said that the price was 2s fid. She did not toll him to take them. She said that she would rather her husband wa* there. By defendant: Was not in the habit of selling things in her husband’s absence. Had accepted the 325, and said that she thought it would be all right. By the bench ; Was positive there were 16 skins. By defendant: Received the money before the skies were taken away. The bench thought it a small matter to bring into court. It all hung on Mrs Crow’s evidence, who did not nell the skins, but thought it would be all right. Tho plaintiff had distinctly told defendant that he would not take less than 2s fid. Judgment for plaintiff for 5s fid and court costs, T. Rennie v. ’T’hop. White—Claim £B. Tho sum of 21s hud been paid into court. Mr Aspinall for plaintiff, and Mr White for defendant. This was a claim for balance due in wages, and one week’s wages in lien of notice. Thos. Rennie : Was engaged by defendant on May Zfith, 1888, as laborer, at 20s a week and found, in October gave a week's notice. I subsequently agreed to stay on. In December it was arranged that I should stay through the harvast for £6 extra. Continued to work until May, of tho current year. Was paid to May 7. Oa May 14, White was threshing. Assisted to cover some sacks. During the night a storm cleared some of the straw away, and I was blamed and told to clear out. I left. Was not paid for that week. Claimed for that, and 20s in lieu of notice. By Mr White : Took a horse to defendant’s. It was grazed there all the time except for about seven weeks. In October White objected to the horse Was paid up to May 7th. Was asked after that to work another week Assisted a Maori to cover the sacks, but the straw was not tied down, It was not arranged that the harvest labor was to cover the grazing of the horse. White said that for the harvest he would only give £2 and the grass of the horse. By Mr Aspinall: The horse was used occasionally by White. In October a fresh arrangement was made, and the grazing of the horse was allowed. When White paid him the £6 for harvest was not included. By tho Bench : Defendant complained that the bags were not properly covered, and ordered him off the place. He then demanded his wages. Thos. White, farmer, Milford: Engaged Rennie at 20i a week. He brought a horse with him. No arrangement waa made about it. In October told him told him to clear the horse out. Had fold bin in the first instance that he would have no horses about the place. In October plaintiff asked what h« was going to give for harvest. He (witness) replied “Jolly little." Nothing was eaid about £2 a week or £6 for the harvest. Did not agree to give him anything. Did not remember anything being said subsequently about harvest. After harvest gave him an order for £26 in settlement. He then asked for harvest money. Declined to give it. Nothing was said about harvest wages until he was paid off. After he (defendant) loft witness was at Uden’s and met defendant, who offered to come and give a hand through threshing. He came. He assisted to cover sacks. They got wet and witness blamed him for it, and ordered him off the place. Suffered loss through it, probably £3 or £4. By Mr Aspinall: When defendant brought the horse he promised to got rid of it. Had used it sometimes. Was sure that no arrangement was made about harvest. There waa no custom about it. If a man was a good hand at stacking he might get extra money. A shilling an hour would be paid for overtime. Defendant could not stack corn. Had stacked for witness, and witness was sorry for it. Was present when some of the sacks were covered. Did not leave the Maori in charge of the covering, Only asked the Maori to tell plaintiff to cover them. By the Bench : The stacks wore covered, but not sufficiently. Mm White, wife of defendant: Knew plaintiff. On May 7th wrote out order for £26 for balance of washes due. This did hot include any qjoiiey for harvest. He asked for that amount and got it. By Mr Aspinall: Was not awaro of any arrangement about harvest. Sam, a native: Was working tor Mr White in May. Waa stacking wheat. Rennie was thorq. White told \vitqess to (

tell Tom to help him to cover tho sacks. There was plenty ot straw. There was not much straw put on the wheat. Could have done better if properly helped. By Mr Aspinall : Was instructed to got Rennie to help. He helped a little bit, and then went away. When witness left there was enough straw to keep the sacks dry. By Mr White: Tho straw blew off in the night. If properly covered it would have been all right, By the Bench : Thought enough had been done when he left. His Worship thought there was not sufficient evidence of an extra harvast wages. There was also Ml enough evidence of neglect cause a week’s wages to be deducted. Judgment, would bo for 49*, and Court cos ( \ No solicitor’s fee would be allowed, J. Mclnnesv. Mrs Polascbek—Claim £7. Mr Aspiaell for plaintiff, and Mr Hay for defendant. J. MoXoness, carpenter, Arowheoua : On 9th January last gave defendant an j estimate »f labor for additions to house. It was £6 2s fid. Also gave an approximate estimate of cost of material. She said she would consult her son. Subsequently an arrangement was entered into. Be agreed'to put op the shell, fix doors, windows, and loor. He had another contract, and could not finish it at once. He offered to go oa with the work, accepting a progress payment of £4 when the work mentioned was completed. He could finish the lining subsequently. This arrangement was made on the 10th January, Work was started next day. 0« the 19th January had fixed up shell, windows, etc., and also setae extra work agreed upon. Then asked for a progress payment: Defendant askedL him to fix tho ceiling in the old and then she wonld pay. Explained that this was not the arrangement, it was part nf the contract that that was to be don® subsequently. She offered to pay £3. The calling was not done, nor was the progress payment made. Went away to his other contract, returning on Saturday nights. Was asked by defendant to finish the ceiling. Be asked for a progress payment. She agreed to give 30s, and he went to work on February 18th. He was about to commence the ceiling, but defendant preferred . to have the lining done first. Used up all the material and asked for more. Some material was on the ground. Explained that it was not suitable. It was intended for the ceiling of the front roome. She told him to use that material. Had done so to the best advantage in the lean-to. There were some short pieces. Explained to defendant that if the timber had been used for the ceiling there would have been no waste. Used all material except some twisted boards and short pieces. Asked for the balance of the material to finish the job. Did not get much satisfaction from defendant. On the 23rd February had finished all material except 4 or 5 boards condemned. Met defendant’s son that dap in town, and he promised to get the timber as soon as - possible. On the following Monday, 25tb, went round. There was no timber. On ; the 25th wrote a letter to defendant, complaining of being kept idle. [L®tt« put in]. Received written reply, fipu. 25th February, there being no mateml > r . for lining, asked her to give such material as was on the place that he might make the mantelpiece. She refused. H« told her the mantelpiece was in the contract, , and if he was not allowed to finish the whole he would summons her. It was subsequent to this that the letters were written. On the next, day there was,no material. On the 2nd March met defendant’s son, who said that if the transaction lay with him there would be no difficulty. He also said that if ,ha (plaintiff) sued bis mother he could not got his case, as tho property belonged to him. It was finally resolved that he should go the following Monday, and tho . material should be ready.. Engaged a man to go with him. They went. There was no extra timber. There were only , the condemned pieces. Did not receive the balance of tho progress payment. Left the work, and wrote a letter complaining of being made a fool of. Received a written reply. [Letters put in]. Paid the man engaged (Foster) a day’s wages, and gave him a week’s work. Did not really require him. The extra work charged for was required, and the charges were reasonable. Had lost 4 days and charged 10s a day. After the 4th March ' had asked for the money, and also for the material to be found. On the 31st March defendant’s son told him the timber was there, and asked him to finish the job. Refused to go unless he received the balance of progress payment, and also for a guarantee for the payment of balance of contract. In his letter offered to submit to arbitration any complaints. Was prepared to do so. By Mr Hay: The contract was to build a two-roomed lean-to (labor only) £6 2s fid. There were to be two in the lean-to. It was not arranged that ’ the doors were to be shifted.. After the contract was made defendant said she was getting a new front door. He told her it would cost 10s. As he understood the contract, the doors in the cettage were to remain as they were. All extras arose from these doors being remoyed. To repair the stud at old door would. cost 4s. To enlarge the opening and repair the studs a charge of 2s fid was made. He could not say how much (he two jobs were worth, Did not know until the lltti that the door would have to be enlarged. Told her that the extra work would be 10s, She s-tid “ Every lime you open your mouth you say 10s.” Did not make a contract for that amount. Charged for his time. The ceiling of oi l house had not to be lined before the progress payment wav made. The mantelpiece was to bo made but not fixed before the payment was made. Witness was examined b detail as to items of work to be done. From this it appeared that the lean-to was to be built and lined and mantelpiece made for £4. When the payment was asked for the mantelpiece was not made. The lining would not take so long as building the lean-to. The shell wonld cost about twice as much as the lining. Gave defendant an estimate of what was wanted. The, material for mantelpiece had been removed fiom his premises. The boxing in was not done. The lining v?aa not \ finished. Whim the order for timber given the material for ceiling was pot forgotten. It came with the rest. The material was short. Could not say if all material ordered was sent. Told defendant he wonld finish tho job when he had

Blurted on hie other contract. Witness admitted that when the progress payment was asked for tbo amount of work had not been done. It was impossible that the work conld have bean finished with the material on the ground. Mr Hay : Would you be surprisad to hear that the work has been completed with this material ? Examination continued : When Poster was engaged it was for Mrs Polashek’s job. It was early when he went to defendant’s. Neither he nor Foster had tools. They were close at hand. Did not go in a bjjggy t Went to McShanos that day, Polaschek did not tell him the t'mber ■ Twas ordered. When he went away expected to come back. On the sth received a letter asking him to come; back. Did not go. Went on to Geraldine. Re-examined ; Had always been willing to complete ibo contract if the material was supplied and progress payment made. For the defence Mr Hay called George Philips, laborer, Terauka ; Was employed by defendant to finish (be lining of a lean-to on or about 4'h April. When he wont there wore 210 ft, 212 ft, and 2 14ft boards. There were soma odds and ends as well. It was suitable for the job J MJAQ 11 Dfl/1

By Mr Aspinall: Was sure it was not the 13tb April- Worked at it at night. AH the -timber mentioned was on the ground, Two pieces were under th® house. J. Andrews, carpenter, made a mantelpiece, lined a ceiling, snd boxed a chimney in for Mrs Polascbek. Did not put a date down. Was paid when the job was completed, There was material enough for him. By Mr Aspinall; Charged Its a day. There was enough material tor all tho work. Tho timber ho received for the - mantelpiece was not worked upon. Teresa Polaschek, widow, Arowheona ; Made a contract with plaintiff. He was to build a two-roomed lean-to, line it, lino the ceiling of front room, make a mantelpiece, and shift two doors. Told him that the front door of the old bouse was to be used as a passage door, and the back door for the back of the lean-to. Witness toldhim he was charging more than another carpenter. He said that he would have more"work to do, as ho would have to shift' the doors. He noticed that the doon would want altering. He agreed, to erect the shell of the lean-to, line the front room; etc., do everything except lining the lean-to, and then receive a progress payment ef £4. All the material asked for was ordered. On the 19th he left. ' He had not done anything to the front rOom. Told him she was in more hurry about that room than anything else. On the 18th February he worked at the lean-to. He complained that he had not enough lining. Witness told him to give an order for it. fie then had enough to go on with. There was timber after he left. It was used to finish the lean-to by Philips. On the 4th March Mclnnes came with a man. They had no tools. He asked if the ceiling timber had come. Told him she expected it every minute. The order was giveo on the Ist March. The timber came before 12 o’clock on the 4th. Witness told Mrs Mclnnes tho timber had arrived. Did not hear from him until the end of March. The work was finished by Andrews and Philips. Cross-examined The shifting of the dobis-was included in the £6 2s 6d. On the 23rd February plaintiff asked for more materiil. He would not then give her a list of what was wanted, unless he was given a progress payment. Afterwards psid him 30s because he wanted money to pay his man’s wages. Told him she would pay the balance when the job was finished. Mr Brown sent his man on the Ist March to take the erder for material wanled. Had one board from Brown on the 13th April. By the Bench : Paid 7s to Philips, and 25s to Andrews to finish the job. Joseph Polaschek : Was present when the contract was made. Mrs Polaschek showed plaintiff the work. He was to build a lean-to, line it, line the ceiling of front room, make and fix mantelpiece, and remove the doors. After due deliberation ho named £6 2s 6d for the woik. He particularly mentioned the doors. When he left in February there was material to go bn with. Mclnnes met him, and said lie bad nearly finished and asked for £2 10J, balance of progress payment. Told him he (witness) must see the work first. There was then enough timber left to finish lining the lean-to. Gould not say when the extra timber arrived from Brown’s. Plaintiff had told him there was not enough timber, but refused to give a list of what was wanled until the money was paid. Cross-examined : Could not remember when the contract' was made. Mclnness did not give the price until he was shown over the work. When Mclnnes was written to atking him to continue the work there was material for him to nee. On the last occasion ha (plaintiff) declined to work until the money was paid into Brown’s as ho thought it shaky. On the 2nd March did not arrange to pay him the £2 10a if he would go back. His’Worship summed up. In an or- ; binary way he should say plaintiff should be paid quantum meriut for what he had done. There bad been, hewever, a delay about limber. Judgment would be for £3 0s 6d, less amount paid into Court, £2 6s fid. •The Court then rose.