COURTS.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 193, 22 May 1872, Page 3

COURTS.

POLICE COURT.— Yesterday. Before W. FRASER, Esq., R.M. Drunkenness. —Alexander Eagleton, J. T. Morris, and John Davis were charged with being drunk. The first defendant was on bail, and did not appear, and the amount of his recognizance was ordered to be forfeited, 't he second pleaded guilty, and was fined 10s, or 24 hours’ imprisonment. The third pleaded guilty, and was fined 20s, or 48 hours’ imprisonment.—John McCoy and P. Firth were also charged with drunkenness. Both defendants pleaded guilty, and were each fined 10s, or 24 hours’ imprisonment. Music and Dancing. —An application by John Dooley, for permission to have music and dancing at the Liverpool and Belfast Hotel, Grahamstovvn, on the night of the 21st instant, was adjourned until next morning. Extension of Licence. —An application by David McMasters, Black Forest Hotel, Shorthand, for permission to extend his licence to Gbinemuri on the 24lii and 25th instant, was also adjourned until next morning.

Assaulting a Constable. —Alexander Eagleton, charged with assaulting Constable MeClery in the execution of bis duty, in Williamson-street, Gralinmstown, on the 20th instant, stated that lie was drunk, and bad no recollection of wlnit took place.—Coifstable MeClery deposed that when he arrested defendant for drunkenness the latter assaulted him by striking him on the chest. —There was a previous conviction for drunkenness against the defendant. —The R.M. said it appeared that defendant had been convicted in that Court of drunkenness ahout twelve months ago ; with which exception ilie police had no knowledge of him. It was fortunate for the defendant such was the case, as a very serious offence had now been proved against him. His Worship thought the present case would he met by a line of 4Us and costs, or three days’ imprisonment.

DISTRICT COURT. — Yesterday. [Before Thomas Becklmtn, Esq., District Judge.] Lasckllks v. City of Boston G.M.C. Mr Macdonald for plaintiff. This was an application for a windingup order, and was adjourned from last Court day. The defendants did not appear. The Court granted the order, — costs, £l2 2s. Hugh Mclliione v. City of St. Andrews G.M.C. Mr Macdonald for plaintiff. This was an application, made under unsatisfied judgment in the Warden’s Court, for a winding-up order. The defendants did not appear. The application was granted, and the company ordered to be wound up in terms of the Act.

IN BANKRUPTCY. IN RE CHARLES STEVENSON. This was an application for discharge, and on the application of Mr Dodd, was adjourned until next Court day. IN RE JAMES MARRIOTT. Tin’s was also an application for discharge, and was also adjourned until next day on the application of Mr Dodd. CIVIL SITTINGS. D. TOOKEY V. A. WALKER. This was an action to recover the sum of £IOO for breach of contract in nondelivery of certain shares in the Bismarck G.M.C., at Coromandel. When the case was called on, Mr Macdonald stated that it had been settled, and it was accordingly struck out. J. KENT V. J BRITON. Mr Macdonald for plaintiff, Mr Tyler for defendant. This was an action to recover the sum of £BS 5s 4d for work and labour in cutting and quariying stone. The defendant pleaded payment. John Briton deposed : I was contractor for the United Pumping Association. A large quantity of stone was required for foundations—between 20,000 and 30,000 cubic feet. The work was commenced about the middle of {September last. It was completed in sixteen weeks from the date of contract. It was a very large ord r, but there is stone enough in the locality. There was a little difficulty at first, as to labour, hut when it was properly advertised, plenty of hands came forward ; labour increased as the work went on. When it became known what I was paying per foot, there were plenty of applicants. I found out that there were more people out of work than 1 thought there were. I did not think any of them made too much. I thought they worked hard, and deserved what they got. Of course, the less I paid the more I made. There was no alteration as to the size of the stone. It was the same throughout. My contractors requested to lie allowed to take out stone of larger blocks than originally p’nvided. The plaintiff in particular made this request. I said I woidd take the larger, and did so; and worked them iii as theywere suitable. I believe the minimum size was not increased by plaintiff. It is quite possible that occasionally stone of larger size might be delivered by plaintiff. The size of the blocks to be delivered by him was to he 14in.by 2tt. wide —in ’ength as long as he could get them. The largest size was to he sft. long and 2ft. thick and 2ft. Gin. wide. The other contractors received notice from me from week to week as to I he size of the stone to be delivered. They did not know what the original specification was, but Kent did. Ten inches was not mentioned. I should not have been allowed to use s’one of that thickness. Twelve inch stone was sometimes used in certain positions. I don’t know whether this stone

bad a natural bed. It was a privilege that I was to take 12m. stone. There was no variation made with Kent e cept rsto his being allowed to deliver larger Stone than was allowed by bis original contract. There was no objection to the largeness of the stone so that it could be lifted on to the truck. I remember that there was a paragraph in a newspaper chronicling a very large block of stone which was brought down for me. It was 6ft. long. I could not say whether the size was exactly stated in the paper. I will not swear whether I read the paper or not. Bv the original compact there was to be nothing smaller than 14in. The items in the bill of particulars as to the number of cubic feet is not correct. The gross amount is 1891 feet. The price was to be Is 8d per cubic foot for stone properly dressed. An abatement to Is was made on a certain class of stone delivered. It was agreed that the price should be reduced to Is as it was not properly dressed. There was no specific quantity of stone agreed upon originally. I don’t remember anything being said about 12,000, at least there was no promise nor agreement about it. I know a man named Gann. I don’t remember anything being said in his presence about it. It was not in consideration of this that the price was reduced on 370 feet of stone. I saw the stonejbefore I paid for it generally, but not always. I saw the 370 feet, and refused to pay for it as part of the contract. I did not pay for it at the rate of Is Gd per foot. Kent was in my debt at one time,but I would not say exactly to what extent. I expected lie would pay the

debt by quarrying, and lie did so nearly. The crane has not been taken' away. It is there now. A part of it was taken away after the debt had been quarried out. A chain and block were taken away by my foreman' because I wanted it. It might have been locked up in my office for a day or two. A wheel and pinion were taken away to prevent its being used, because Kent was supplying stone to the Gas Works and using my tools. I was to supply one man to assist in pulling the stone on to the trucks, and Kent was fo supply the other. I have not said that 1 was to bear the whole expense of putting the stone on to the trucks. I know a man named McKenzie. He commenced to work for me some time after Kent. McKenzie objected to load the trucks. Fothoringham is a blacksmith, and was employed to make some alterations to the crane by Kent and Gann. I believe tin* crane was broken several times. I paid for repairs at their request for damages done by them. I paid £5 Is 9*l at the request of Kent, and the same for Gann at liis request. Whatever was done to the crane by them was to be done at their own cost. They removed the crane, hut it was not arranged that it should then be their property. Ido not know that Kent has now taken up that piece of ground where the quarry is. I have heard that Tookey and Stewart have made an application for it, and I have heard something about Kent taking it up, but I do not know anything positive about it. Kent and Cann said they supposed the crane was theirs. I said no it’s mine, hut the things you’ve bought and paid for and put on it,you can take away. There were certain movable th ngs. They had permission to move the crane to wherever they liked to put it. Kent might have said to me “ You can have th<* stone polished if you like to pay for it.” This was said in consequence of my finding fault, an some of the stone had been condemned at the works. The 12in. stone would be cheaper than the 10in., because the latter would require as much dressing as the former. Alexander McKenzie, stone - mason, deposed that lie was quarrying on the Ilape Creek,and supplied stone to him for the pumping association works. If the miniu.inn thickness was increased from 10 to 12 inches it would increase the price. The witncssjjwas further examined as to the relative prices of different sizes of stone. Whilst witness was quarrying for Mr Kent, the sizes were altered in such a way as to cause more waste, but he did not make any extra charge in conquence. John Kent, the plaintiff, deposed :—I know the defendant, Briton. 1 engaged with him to open two or three places if I could find stone suitable. I went up the Hape Creek, and afterwards saw Mr Briton at his own house, and then made the bargain upon which they set to work. The stone was to he from 10 inches to 2 feet, jumping 2 inches. The stone was not to be less than 18 inches in width, and as long as could he obtained. Briton gave Is 8d per foot. He was to put no a crane anywhere where I could find 200 or 300 feet of stone, and to keep the quarry clear and to load. There was no written agreement. I wanted to have writings for it, but lie said L should not want any writings; that the agreements were all alike. Mr Briton told me that he was in a hurry for stone, as he was bound by his contract as to time. Where I first started to work, no crane was put up, and I got blocked, and the stone cost me 2s 4d per foot. I asked Mr Briton for the crane. He told me he would then get stone without a crane. Other men had then commenced to work in another part of the creek. lie said lie was no longer hound for time. I tlnn went to work opposite Cann’s, and had the use of his crane when lie was not using it. Briton asked Cann to let me have the use of it. Towards the end of the job, it got broken. Briton told me there were 12,000 ft of timber to come out of Gann’s quarry and mine, and if I would let him have the stone in the upper quarry at Is, lie would clear out both quarries, and keep them clear until 12.000 feet wen* cut. I agreed to Ibis. Briton agreed that the crane should b long to me and Cann if we paid for ilie expenses of it’s removal. I agreed if tlie expenses did not exceed £5 to contribute ore-half, and Cann was to pay the same. The jib broke and another was supplied. I was to work out the difference between the Is 6d and Is per foot. After tin’s had been worked out Briton took the crane away, or at h ast part of it. lie left it so as to he useless to us. That was the end of inv working for him. I paid a man £5 4 for helping to remove the crane whilst. I was. there, and to another gave four days’ labor. I have charged £l2 15s for time and labor in removing the crane. I value my time and labor at from 10s to 15s per day. I received from Mr Briton on four different occasions, orders to vary the size of (lie stone. I told Mr Briton there would he an increased price according to the size. For 800 feet I charged him Is Old, and for another lot of about 700 feet Is lid. These charges are fair and reasonable, and within the value. I did not knock off sixpence per foot on the 370 feet on account of the inferiority of the article or tlie workmanship, but because Mr Briton said there was such a large amount of stone to be cut. I know Holland, lie was appointed to measure up the work. After the crane was taken away we could do no more. I know Fotheringham the blacksmith. Briton sent him up. I did not authorise Briton to pay him £5 for irte for repairs to the crane.

By Mr Tyler: I first thought of bringing this action when Briton altered the

size of the stone, to he delivered to no ot o r size then 21 inches and two feet. In the latter end of January or the beginning of February, when I completed the work, I thought of making tins claim. I received tlie last payment from Mr Briton in January. I knocked off work in February. I was not the last man on the job quarrying. There were others left after me. I made a demand on Mr Briton for payment of my account, and he told me I was in his debt. I did not personally' demand of him £BS, but if I had my rights it would be over £2OO. I not Mr Miller to make out the account. I I .asked Mr Dewar to look over the account. Mr Dewar said I had been very badly used. He did not say that he could not see that anything was due to me. I did not tell Mr Holland that I’d be square with Mr Briton, or that I’d servo him out, or anything of that kind. lie did not say to me, “ I don’t see how you can do that when you’ve been settled up with." I had a man named Ockleshan working for me. You may call him a partner if you like. When I got my money from Mr Briton, I usually paid the wages men, and then divided the money that was over with Ockleshan. lie was at work for two or three months in the upper quarry. Briton told me that he would not recognise Ockleshan as my partner. He was not my partner in the original contract. He left about Christmas. I went on quarrying for Mr Briton after that. I am now claiming for work partly' done before he left, and part afterwards. Mr Tyler submitted that plaintiff must be non-suited, as Ockleshan ought to be joined. The R.M. said it would appear that there was some sort of partnership existing between the plaintiff and Ockleshan. The further consideration of the point was reserved, and the Court adjourned until next morning at half-past teu o’clock.