YESTERDAY.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2603, 12 May 1877, Page 2

YESTERDAY.

(Before W. Fraser, Esq., E.M.) CIVIL SIDE. , Deferred Judgment. In the case of Home v. Fotheringham, a claim of £4 15s, in which judgment was deferred from last Court day, plaintiff was nonsuited, with costs, 10s. JUDGMENTS FOB PLAINTIFFS. * In the following cases judgment was given for plaintiffs with costs:—Holieson and Son v. David Young—Claim, £3 16s 3d, goods, and costs, 19s. Same v. Goilop—Claim, £8 13s 7d, goods, and costs, 235. Judgment Sujkmoks. HAN SEN V. TINCENT. Claim, £8 6s. Wm. Vincent, sworn, deposed—l am the person against whom Mr Hansen obtained a judgment summons., Since then I have paid no portion of the money.- The debt has been standing since '75, I hare no property. By plaintiff—lt has taken my time to maintain my wife andPmyself. During the last two months I hare earned nothing at all.; I did not make a lot of money at the gum trade. My wife did not help me to dig. gum—it was not her place to do so. I liad to sell my horses. I paid part. of-the. money I got for them to you. : Plaintiff said he-had heard that defendant had done well at the gum diggings. No order made. : ' .' m - ;. r. Defended Cases. rjfHITEHEAD AND MCJ&EAY T. THOS.; - " n~ MANNING. Claim, £116s, goods. Mr Macdonald appeared for the defendant. ' ' '-- E. Whitehead, sworn, deposed—l sup* plied goods to defendant's daughter to the amount claimed. Mr Manning had no knowledge of the debt until he had got the account from me. He said his daughter was net living with him. Thos. Manning, sworn, deposed—l.am the defendant in this action. ■ Last July my daughter did not lire with me; she has not lived, with, me "since. I did not authorise her to incur the debt for which I am now sued. Nonsuited, without costs. -FAg'g TVHBLDT. ' ' ' '■*. -~; Claim £15, damages, \ Mr Macdonald for" plaintiff, and Mr Brassey for defendant. Mr Macdonald said his client had hired a boat to defendant, which, while in the latter's charge, had been damaged; and further loss had been incurred during the delay of repairing the boat. - .-,---,, Wm. Fagg, sworn, deposed—l am'the owner of the Galatea. Mr. Heldt hired the boat for the day for 7s 6d. It was on the-6th,of April. I did not get the. boat back until the 17th April. The boat was very much damaged. The damage done has not been fully repaired., I valued the boat at £15. I gave £3Oj for her. At the time I let her she was a - sound boat. She was a fast-iailing boat* i she won a race once. The boat is not sea-worthy now! She is a Sydney-built boat. The damage was estimated by boat-builders at'£lo. . =5 By Mr Brassey—l have had the boat about 8 years. I hired her to Heldt only. When I let her she was sound. I hare frequently let the boat. A person named May first told me-about the damage done ' to my boat. Mr, Savage saw the boat. I .intended togive him the boat to repair. I did not say to Heldt, ".You have done it at last." I never, to my- knowledge, offered the boat to. any one for lesi than £15. I did not offer it to Mr Puokey.*I showed Fielder the damage done, and he said it would cost about £6 to repair it. I did not understand him to say that that sum would pay the^xpeneet,t>f painting the boat. They "returned" "a few coils of rope. I told them they had better buy the boat. I would have sold her for £15. In answer to the Bench plaintiff said he thought the. boat worth: aboot 4s.ptt present. , -" y V. Savage, - bworn,- deposed—l know ;the Galatea. I saw the boat in April in a -damaged condition. I saw her after she was repaired. The repairs have not made her as good as. she Was before. I was asked what I would do her for. I said £7. I saw her two or three dayibefqre she was damaged. She was then in good order. Chafing against the piles of the wharf would cause the damage.. It would not be safe %o . leave the boat at the wharf if it was blowing, unless she was secured both-ends. <-, .. . ,_, By Mr Brassey—l told 'Fagg I would repair her for £7. I; saw her v juft.before she went away. ' She was taut then. I repaired the stern.abqut.that time. Ido not know what rae age of the boat is. My work was donepcoperly. She is now improperly repaired. Robert : Stope, 3worn; deposed-??I?am a ship- builder. I looked at the Galatea tlie other day. Mr. Fagg-wkedj tap look at her, When I saw her sne'wai deoidedly shaky. Banging about by the wharf *m would, affect. a^ light Jb£a.ljporjL_AiJLJL^ heavy one. £7 ought to have repaired the boat, rJShepras not,; r wben,r»j»atred, such as I would have..done hen She ii now very much out qf> orders "7 K'^.i a By Mr J^rassey-r-I da.,npjtj~ltaofr jfei. what. state. she was before.the .damage^ was done. £7 would cover all.ekptniMu and one coat of'paint.' cL'a-;:!; l^Ahlil Fred. Heldt, sworn, deposed—l «atb«f^ defendant. I recollect hiring- the^b«at.;: It was on the -sth of April. We wew;in Fagg.'s shop..,' Fagg..said he winted/fOifc 0 I said 1 would give 7s 6o\;, that. wasVtlie, agreement.. Kneebonerwas wftE nief.r. The boat was in a.very shaky. r cqndlitjj&i' t when ,wp got her., . Going over "to Ipfe Piako, one.had to.be bailing thoirhglo. -, time. We .hoii.tcd a sale coming' back..; The rope which I held broke. Wlien iwe ; came-back the,'tide :was dead out; : i Wfj srcured her. ,*s well as we . could: to the end of the Grahamstown wharf. We'; threw the' anchor out and^revented U from-touching the wharf. We saw h»i again on Sunday; she was in the same po*i- - tiori; but swamped. 'Fagg wanted us to buy 7' her. He also said ; " You have done it "at"' last." I wanted Fagg to go to a boatbuilder's ;and decide-about repairing. <!*•-■., We had it repaired by Fielder.- We; re« J turned the boat on the 17th of April.: J»;,} my., opinion the boat was. sounder ,than_ when we got her. He wanted us to give Savage the'job. ■ It was said that if we ? gave Savage the job, we- would have to j pay pretty, stiffly as-they wefe-4>cH& -_• Navals.,- We. sent, the boat back fulLof'." rope, Ac. Fagg said he would make \ii \ pay for the time. ' '*•■? By Mr Macdonald—l have been acquainted with boats since I was 8 yearg' old. I think I understand navigation better than the construction of boats. I

■never pulled a boat two hours with the anchor down. (Laughter.) I could get no satisfaction from Fagg regarding her repair. The boat leaked very much when we started." Francis Kneobone, sworn, deposed—l recollect the 6;h April We launched the boat from the Shortland pier. (Witness' statements principally corroborated Mr Heldt's statements.) James Parslow, sworn, deposed—Wheu we started we found she was mating water. Going over we had to bail her out several times. We had to launch her twice. .We were very careful as she was shaky. The boat seemed to be very old. I believe she was stronger when we returned her than when we got her. : By Mr Macdonald—l had nothing to do with the boat after leaving her. lam only a witness in this case. I paid a part of the expense of repairing the boat. Robert Fielder, sworn, depospd—l am a shipwright. I have been such 38 yean. I recollect Mr Heldt coming to me about a boat. N Mr Fagg also came to me. I pointed out to him what I was going to do. Fagg^sliowed me damage done to knees. Ljfenit it was old damage. The estimate I TStrsfc gave was £2 10s. I afterwards charged more, in consequence of having done some extra work which I did not first see. A cedar boat is worth more than a kauri one. The boat in question was a shaky ccc. My repairs were sound. I did not inspect her all over, but I did all that, was required. By Mr Macdonald—The chafing was very little. It might have been done by ropes. I: could not say for certain, j £3 was my charge. Thomas Arnold, sworn, deposed—l am a waterman; I know the Galatea. I saw her 00. the Sunday. I saw her after she wasrepaired in part. The work would have given me satisfaction if it had been for myself. This concluded the evidence. Mr Brassey addressed the Court. -He said from the evidence adduced it was clear that the boat when taken away was very shaky. The ■: defendants had done all in:their power to save the boat from damage, and the damage done had been repaired, and the boat made better than before it Was: taken away. He thought the"only damage that could be. % claimed was for the loss of time while the boat was being repaired. ; , ; Mr Macdonald said the argument that the boat was leaky was not. much. It might have been the consequence of the boat'lying in the sun. The damage done to the boat (which was of a light construction) by.hauling it in over the beach in .launching, was- probably very great; He said the -defendants; had no right whatever to take the repairs of the boat in hand at all, but their duty was to have handed-it over to the owner, and paid, the amouht"of? the damage done. . -■His Worship said it appeared to him that'the young men had behaved Well in the whole matter, but damage had been done to the boat, and they would have to pay. Judgment for plaintiff £4, and costs £4 12s. - -: f:.\ , ,■;.;. L ,.. /. .-.,■ .- : : . CABEWT.GOIOOKDA G.M.CO. Claim, £17 10s, wages. Mr;. Macdonald, appeared for plaintiff; Mr Brassey for defendant. Robt. Home, sworn, deposed—l was the secretary^of-ihe Golconda G-.M.Co. My appointment was in writing. The company hasbeen voluntarily wound up. Carew 1 was; appointed mine, manager of the company; at a salary of £3 10s per week. Mr Caiew was discharged before Christmas—in December. Mr Comptom went .to Coromandel from Auckland to dd so,'and also, to discharge other business. I^intimated to Mr Carew after the company had been wound up that if he waited he might, if the company commenced .-again,;:be -re-employed. Mr Carew wanted payment up to February 3rdv ; , ; -„ ■ - •••■-,-/ • -' :y' - / 7 ''■ By.: Mr Brassey^Mr Garew Was paid up to the 23rd. December. Ifecbllect Mr Comptpn's arrival at Coromandel. He came l;down' to discharge all hands.. There^r^np wages due to Mr Carew. •,.- Ffealwiifelc Compton, sworn, deposed—l was a^director of the Golcqnda G.M.Co. I told Mr Carew he w»s ; to-discharge all hands as the, company had no funds. •; ' By-Mr Brassey—l had been in the habit of going to Coromandel. I went down for the: purpose of winding up the company, and other business. A.'-W. GareWi: deposed—l was mine manager of the Golconda, G.M.Co. I never had any direct information that I was discharged. By fMr Brassey—l,was; present at a meeting of directors of the. company in December, when it was decided to stop working. I considered I ought to be paid for. looking after the property after the mine stopped.'*' 1 " ' Mr Macdonald - read correspondence between the secretary (Mr Home) and Mr Carew, and contended that there had been nd proper dismissal : of ; his client in Decepib'erY :T' ■ ;' :- ' Judgment for.■ plaintiff,; £17 103, and OOSt&£_2l2|., ; „j-^;u .-;:; v; ■ .-: ■-,;. ; : T-he Cotor(^^ihen; adjpurne^ till 2.30. , r The Co^irt resumed :ii 2^30. Claim, £34 Is, balance of account. Mr Macdonald appeared, for the plaintiff, and Mr Brassey for the' defendant. - Mr Macdonald said that the plaintiff had built a house for defendant,.and had done so according to the plans 'md specifisations. The defendant found fault with the building, and. said it was not carried 7 but according;to specification. There had been; sorrie alterations, a brick chimney being Substituted for an iron one;at rthei instance.of the Inspector of. Nuisances, who would not allow" I ( the iron chimney to be attached to' a"new house. The same official;had also insisted on thd gronndunder the house being filled in, which was not included in the speci-. ficajtions. * . • . Mr Brassey submitted that the :case. was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, as the contract price exceeded £50. - He referred to. the case" of Adlam v. Thomp-. son, heard some time ago, when His Worship said he-had no jurisdiction, .arid argued, that itwas of asimilar character to that case. : ' His Worship said'they would have to leave the contract alone if the case was to be heard. ::; ;- Jr - . : ! Considerable discussion hero ensued, which terminated by his Worship saying he had no jurisdiction. . . ... C.. I?. QUINT V. EIED AND WIFE. ■ Claim, £20, damages. . Mr Brassey appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Macdonald for the defendant. \ Mr Quint said he had retained Mr Macdonald, and'he cfid hot know why he appeared against him. . , Mr Macdonald explained that Mr Brassey and himself, had been retained in

a ease which had nut coiae off by Mr Quint, the defendant being the same as in this case. It was for the recovery of the deposit paid at (he auction, but the money had been rv!-urne..l *nd the case was at an end. Mr Brassey said that csrain property was advertised for sale on the 13th April last, and had been sold by auction by Mr Gudgeon, his client, Mr Qtrirr, beinjj the purchaser. Mr Quint paid the deposit of £50, and was willing to complete the purchase by it appeared, that the vendor had not power to make a transfer. Mr Quint now sued for damaoes—interest on the money and expenses for proving the title,

Thomas W. Gudgeon, sworn, deposed —I am an auctioneer carrying on business at Grahamstown. I received instructions to sell certain property in Mary street from Mrs Eied. I was instructed to sell the remainder of the lease. Mrs Hied told me her father and brother were the trustees. Those are the conditions of the sale (produced). It was arranged between Mr and Mrs Hied that the reserve price be £250. Mr Hied bid £350, and finally the property was sold to Mr Quint for £255. Mr Quint paid a deposit of £50, and I gave him that receipt (produced) for the deposit. About a week after I sent a letter requesting the balance of the purchase money, but received instructions afterwards 1o pay back the deposit. I returned the money on receiving a letter from Mr Brassey. I had held the deposit for Mr and Mrs Ried: :

By Mr IVTacdonflld—r Mrs Ried instructed me to sell the property, .^and I sold it for her. I returned the deposit to th.c ; person I got it from. I acted wholly for Mrs Hied, who instructed me that I was acting for her separate estate. Charles" F. Quint, sworn, deposed—l am the plaintiff. I recollect the 13th April last, when I purchased Ried's house for £255. I paid a deposit of £50. The sale was not completed, and my deposit was returned. Mr Gudgeon told me that it was Mr Eied's house. To the best of my belief those conditions are not the same conditions as I signed after the sale. I was at all times ready to complete the purchase. I have sustained considerable loss. I took two painters to paint ..the house, and they.painted part of the front ( of it, . J paid £1 each to Mr Macdonald and to.Messrs Eees and;Tyler, to investigate the title. -I also claim interest on the deposit. By Mr Macdonald—l said I would'nt take the property bee^use the painter could not get the key on Tuesday to get into the house. I was to have gofc immediate possession. (A. letter was read from Mr Quint, dated 23rd April, requesting the repayment of tie deposit.) About the 22nd of April I was told that the title "was bad. The letter T wrote on the 23rd of April said T,was always ready to complete the purchase.' I claim 8 guineas for investigating I lie.title. . Thomas W. Gud eon.ie,called,deposed —I signed those conditions on the Monday night before the sale. : Mr Macdonald addressed the Court, and argued to some length that there was no cause of action under several heads, the principal of which was that Mr Quint had written requesting the re-paymerit of the deposit money. Mr Brassey replied. Plaintiff nonsuited ; costs, £1 Is. Court adjourned.'_. ". ' . '