RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT—

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 94, 27 January 1872, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT—

Yesterday. Before W. Fraser, Esq., It.M. UnDEFENDEdCaSES —JUDGMENT FOliPlAlNtiffs.—A. Lascklles v. J. Boulter—£l 19s 7d., balance of account for professional services. Commercial G.M.Co. v. D. Henderson, £5 12s fid. for calls. T. O’Connor v. M. Costegan, £2 6s Bd., wages. Fleming and Stevenson v. G. McNulty, £3 Is 2d for goods Same v. J. Ilackstep, £9 Is 10d., for goods; order made for payment by instalments of 12s. per month, and failing payment, one month imprisonment. W. Irwin v. W. Hyder and T. Perriman, £2 0s Gd., for wages. E. H. Bere v. Pita te Hangi and others, £3l Is., for services as a surveyor. W. Wilson v. T. Shaw, £1 35., goods. Same v. W. Percival, 15s Bd., goods. Same v. Marriott, £7 17s lid., goods. Cases Adjourned to next Court Day. —J. A. Akers v. W. 11. Acton and W. Collins, £24 lGs 10d., goods. J. Ogilvie v. J. Horan, claim to recover possession of land. F. J. Piesse v. T. Wells. Defended Cases.— J. Richter and S. Bicheno v. G. Giikenway. —Mr Dodd for plaintiff’; Mr Tyler for defendant.— This was an action to recover the sum of £36 Pis Gd for work and labour. —The plaintiff pleaded not indebted, and also a set off. —The defendant said the plaintiffs had been engaged to do certain work for him at a tlunie and water-race leading to the Ilape Creek Battery. They were to go by Mr Cameron’s orders. He had paid £3O, and could not say whether or not he owed them any more—it was a question. He had a set off for £IG for piping. He had received a notice to produce the agreement, and handed it to Mr Tyler, (who said lie had not got it; eventually contract and specifications were put in as evidence). The work was not completed within the time specified. Before the final payment a certificate was to be furnished by Mr Cameron thrt the work had been finished in a satisfactory manner.—S. Bicheno stated that he and Mr Richter, his partner, did the work, and that the amount now sued for is due and owing. The original contract was waived by subsequent alteration at the suggestion of Mr Cameron, C.E. The line of raco was altered, and there was another alteration made in the width of the fluming. The fluming was broken down and put up again at Mr Greenaway’s request. There was a considerable loss of time by stoppage of work and lit’gation in Court.— J. C. Richter corroborated the statement made by his partner, Mr Bicheno.—Joseph Mallett deposed to the work being done in a fair and workmanlike manner. Daniel Grove testified to the same effect. For the defence, T. B. Cameron, engineer, etc., was called, and stated that he acted as Mr Greemvay’s agent in this matter. Remembered the race being knocked out. Told them that the flume would require to bo. erected according to specification. Never made any new contract with them, nor told them to stop and that Mr Greenway would pay. The piping is included in the specifications. It was procured from Auckland at the request of Bicheno. —By Mr Dodd : Before the work commenced there was something said to the effect that Mr Grove and Mr Vernon would endeavour to interfere with the work, but witness told the contractors to push the work on. Never asked for “ tip ”in this case. It is usual for contractors to pay for copies of plan and specifications. The plaintiffs have already bccD overpaid. Three items of the work were altered subsequent to entering on the contract at the request of witness. —The R.M. gave judgment for plaintiff for £lO 12s Gd and costs, £6 17s. The Court then adjourned until this day,