RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1966, 7 November 1889, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Geraldine—Tuesday, Nov. 6, 1889. ' [Before Captain C. A. Wray, R.M.] ■ CIVIL CASE. ; J. Kenoington v. George Ward —Claim 12s, balance of account for 600 bricks supplied. Plaintiff stated that defendant got the 600 bricks for bricking a well. Had told plaintiff that there were soma bricks in the kiln at £2 5s per thousand, and aema outside | £2; Told the; defendant that, those outside would do for the tank, as they would, be underground and would have to be plastered. Defendant took tbe bricks outside. . Ward got tbe bricks and afterwards offered 12a in payment. Plaintitf said this wpa opt , enough, but took it'and gave him credit for it. Ho now sued for tbe balance. ■ . Mrs Kennington gave evidence as to defendant, getting . the . bricks, and bis saying he was to have them at 2s per hundred. vVitness told him that he;had made a mistake, as her husband bad told her thdtjhe bricks were tp be ;4s per hundred. Had never known bricks to be I sold at 2s per hundred. ■., Defendant said that on enquiring about bricks Kenpingten told him that ho had some bricks in the kiln, but had some outside that would do for his job, as t the work was underground, and would have to be plastered. Plaintiff, had told him he could have those outside for 2s per 1 hundred as they, had been spoilt by the heavy hailstorm, and were dead stock to 1 him. When be went for the bricks ho told Mrs Kennington he was to get them at 2s per hundred, and she said Kennington bad told her they were to bo 4s per hundred. Had paid/l2« to Kennington, and considered the matter was settled till 1 he got the summons. Would not have taken the bricks if 4s per hundred had been asked for them, as lie had refused them at that quotation before. After hearing both parties hie Worship i said it appeared that defsodant had made , a mistake in tbe price quoted to him. No ' doubt the mistake occurred In Hie word ‘‘two*’ being used in connection with a 1 thousand, and defendant had mistaken it far 2s per hundred. i Judgment was given for tha amount i claimed, and posts. I The Court iljen rose.