MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2639, 29 March 1894, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka —Tuesday, March 27th. [Before 0; A. Wray, Esq., S.M.] PROHIBITION ORDER. A prohibition order was granted against J. Whitehead, to extend throughout the Temuka district and to the Arowhenua Hotel. CIVIL OASES. Geo. Gibbs v. Alma Edgeler—Claim £1 i6s Id. Judgment summons. Defendant pleaded that since judgment had been obtained against him he had had 13 month’s sickness. He had a wife and family to keep, and his average earnings had only amounted to 14s a week. He had earned about £7 at shearing, and had some odd days’ work since.—Order made for payment of 10a a month, the first instalment to be paid at once. Same v. H. Lynch—Claim £2 5s 6d. Judgment summons. Debtor said he had not earned a pound a week for the last 3 years. Mis wife had cows, but they were bein» paid for by the proceeds of the milk? Had only earned about £8 12s 6d at harvest. Could not make any promise to pay. Was working occasionally for Mr J, Mundell, but as he owed him a lot of money; only received a few stores. — Ordered to pay 10a a mouth or in default 7 days imprisonment. J, McCaskill v. D. Smith Claim £3 q2s Id. Judgment for plaintiff by default for amount claimed and costs. Job Brown v. J. Davidson Claim JJ2 ss, Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs. . C. Story v. Kagelmacher Claim £2 Is cash lent. Judgment for plain tiff foT amount claimed and costs. W. Hooper v. J. Carter —Claim £2loa, for rent. Mr Salmond for plaintiff. Defendant admitted the claim, but iT stated that he was not in a position to pay, Bad very little work. Judgment for amount claimed and costs. C. Story v. T. Kyne—Claim I2s 6d for buggy hire. Defendant bad paid amount, but plaintiff claimed the costs incurred, Bs. Judgment for amount of costs. J. Brown v. J. Davis—Claim £5 Cs 2d. Mr Salmond for plaintiff, Mr Raymond for defendant. Defendant paid into Court 3s Bd, and disputed an account alleged to be due to the Temuka Carriage Company, the debts in which were payable to plaintiff. James Eldar, wheelwright,Temuka. Was in the employ of Mr Brown in May, 1892. Remembered doing some of the work mentioned in the account, viz., repairs to dray. The whole of the work was done in the shop. The prices wore fair and reasonable. No complaint had been mdde as far as witness knew. By Mr Raymond: When the work was brought the instructions regarding the same were given to Mr H. Williams, the manager. Mr Williams drove the spokes i.. iuto the wheel. Would .be surprised to find all the spokes were loose in a couple \ days. The tyres were cut bythe black- " gau*h. The wheel was boxed by witness. There had been very few complaints of Williams’s work. ' J, Brown had rendered the account tor the work many times. Once or twice Davis had complained about the work. Had rendered the account immediately after the business was closed in June, 1892. It was quite a year before he made auy complaint. He then said he would pay as soou as he could, but said the workmanship was bad. Plaintifi said that at auy rate the material was good. The account for the dray repairs and the general store accounts were consolidated, and defendant had made payments on the whole. By Mr Raymond ; Had originally distinguished between the two "accounts. Charged the Carriage Company’s accounts to the store ledger, as Mr Davis had an account there. * By Mr Salmond : Had uevftr had any trouble about Williams’s work. The accounts in connection with the Carriage Company had como in remarkably well. __ By the Magistrate : Had not previously for the money, as Davis was a good Mr Raymond said that the defence was I simply that tho work done was useless. I Tho dray was taken to Williams to bo rcI paired, and in a couple of days the wheel I fell to pieces. The spokes wore driven I iutq * bud uqvo, imd the dray liad tu be

taken to another tradesman to get the work done again. J. Davis, defendant, said in June, 1892, he took a dray to Mr Williams ; one wheel was in need of repair. Told Williams he wanted a good job made. He said he would make a sound job of it. Williams had the dray about a mouth, when he told defendant to fetch it away. . Took it away and used it shortly afterwards. His attention was then drawn to the bad workmanship, the spokes were working loose, and the putty and paint coming out of the joints. The next day the wheel came to pieces. Took it to Colville, who made a good job of it for £4. About a fortnight afterwards the other wheel went while working at Winchester. Took it to a wheelwright there, who asked if he had done the job himself. Could not complain to Williams, as he had left. Had seen Mr Brownand told him about the work, and said it would have paid him better to burn it than let it go to Williams. Mr Brown told him he had nothing to do with that. Refused to pay, as the work was no good to him. By Mr Salmond: Had paid Colville for repairs, £4. He made a good job of it, practically a new wheel except the tyre. The other wheel only cost 17s 6d to repair. The two felloes came out. Refused to pay anything in respect of the second wheel, which cost £2 6s to repair at Williams’s, although it had only cost 17s 6d for repairs after a few days work. Could not say what “setting an axle” meant. Was not prepared to say if it was any use. Did not tell Mr Brown anything about the bad work until personally asked for payment. ■ Always looked at it as Williams’s affair. Had always refused to pay Brown. By Mr Raymond ; The work done was absolutely useless. Had paid a pound for dray hire, and lost the work of a team for two days, besides what he had paid away. When personally asked by Mr Brown for payment twelvemonths afterwards was the first time he understood that Williams had nothing more tp do with the business. Jas. Cain gave evidence corroborative of the breaking of one wheel before and after repairs. Noticed the spokes had burst the nave, which had been puttied up. The work to the other wheel was very rough, and witness advised Davis it was dangerous. Had a good deal of experience of drays and carting. Fredk, Colville, wheelwright, Temuka, also gave technical evidence. Considered the wheel was spoiled through the spokes being driven in too tight. Williams was able to do thejwork, but in his opinion did not make a good job on this occasion. By Mr Salmond: Would have discarded the nave if he found it was not sound enough to stand the spokes. A competent wheelwright should have known the nave would not stand. Williams was a good tradesman, with experience. Did not use any of the new spokes put in by Williams; only the tyre was of value. His Worship said there was no doubt the job was slummed over. The question was : Did defendant derive any benefit from the work done ? The whole job cost some £5. Subsequently he had to pay £4 for a new wheel and 17s 6d for repairs, besides losing time. Mr Salmond pointed out that defendant paid £4 for a new wheel and not for repairing a damaged one, and further that he got benefit from work done to one wheel, and that the Court had nothing to do with the dray hire or lost time. Mr Raymond urged that the job was one indivisible contract.

His Worship summed up the value of the work done to defendant, and allowed £1 17s. He reserved judgment as to whether he should allow anything to defendant for lost time. The C6urt then rose.