RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume X, Issue 3207, 30 May 1879, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS DAY.

(Before, Colonel Fraser, E.M.)

f CIVIL SIDE.

Judgment fob Plaintiffs.

In the following cases judgment was given for the plaintiffs with costs:—A. Fleming v. Rogan.—Claim, 14s, Borough rates, and costs. 6s. Same v. Same.— Claim, £1 14>s, Borough rates, and cost 6s. Same v. >W. C; Wright;-~Claim, £1 Bs, Borough rates, and.costs 6s. E. "Wiseman v. Pianakawa.—Claim, £7, goods, andcoßtsl3s. Wiseman v. Jamei Home. —Claim, £5 10s, goods, and costs 14s.

Defended Cases

VEBNON V. GUDGEON.

Claim, £50, services in preparing valuation list. •

Mr Miller for plaintiff; and Mr Brassey for defendant. .

Mr Brassey said that the defence was that a special contract was! entered into, that the work#ras to cost a specific sued. Plaintiff had agreed to do the work for £30, and £10 had been paid on account.;

Thomas W. Gudgeon, sworn, deposed —I am Land Tax Valuer for the Borough of Thames, and hare been so for some months past. . My .first duties were to send notices to the occupiers in duplicate, accompanied by particulars: On receiving the notices bsick: they had to be 1 sorted and the books numbered, and filled in, the names 1 and residences; of the, occupiers, and'the names of the oV.ners,';'. I recolleijt engaging Mr Vernon to me -spme time in January last.,. '-Mr Vernon met me in ;the.street and asked: me if I wanted assistance^ I said my. appointment. in Auckland would detain me there, and that I would require assistance. He said he would do most of the clerking work for £40. I told him to go on and the price would be decided , whea, I, vent ■. up to Auckland *s, I would then;be,able.to tell him how much of the Jworfc J could do. ;I,alsd told him,if I got £80 for the work, , £40 would be excessive for Mm. - fWhen . I returned from Auckland I ;told Vefnon t could give 2 months to it myself,■ and I thought £30 for him would 'be enough^ which he agreed to.; The list of pwnerd of properties was to be made, out in alphabetical order. I :did :impst bf thd work. I filled in about 30 books out of 60 book's of forms,. and I wprked hard : during the ttwq months I was here. r ';': i Henry Vernon, sworn, deposed—l am the plaintiff. I had a conversation with the defendant about? this Land; Tax valuation* , He ._ told me ho. had been appointed Land ; Tax Valuer; and also , Returning Officer, and he did not;know how he would manage to doall the worki He said he Was to get £80 for the Land Tax, and asked; me if I could render him any assistance. I said-1 could, and; he brought the-paper's to;my; office Jan. 15th. I said I would help him for half the pay, viz.,. £40, on condition .that he 'would^do; half; the work,.' Subsequently, I'sent him soime'of the/papers arranged, and told.him what to do.V He then informed that as he had so much, to., do"', he could only give me £30. I was not to arrange the names in alphabetical order, and after .the charge had, been .agreed to,; each valuer received a telegram from Mr McLean entailing extra work oh them, for which they were to get extra pay. This! work was arranging all the names of occupiers and;owners in alphabetical order. I did fully 9-10ths of the work included in the original contract, and all the extra •work excepting the signature. Mr Gud-i geon paid £10 on account, leaving a balance of £54 owing. I have abandoned £4. I consider it a very reasonable charge for the work done. By Mr Brassey—l was not to receive £10 and the order for £20 (produced) in? full of my demand; I consider that the order is a worthless piece of paper, and I: have never presented it. "I had a conversation with Mr Mcllhone about tho i remuneration 1 was to receive,'but 1 did not tell him that I would do all Mr Gud-? geon's clerical work for '£30. ; <!':Fi; H. CHpper, swdrn, deposed—l| ■assisted Mr ; Vernon id, clerical work in connection with Land* Tax Valuation; „I! was employed on the list oft the Thames Borough—Mr Gudgeon's district—but I: received my instructions from Mr Vernon. Mr Vernon did most of the work. The; extrawork was worth between £26 and £30. ■■ ■■-■'■■■' • <:':" ■■" ' j

Henry Janjes Lee, sworn, gave corroborative evidence. . -.•■'--.-..■

This concluded the plaintiff's case. T. W. Gudgeon, recalled,! deposed— Vernon was to do all the work for;£3o. I haFeipot been paid for any of.theextras byjthe Government, and I don't think I ever shall. I never varied the contract in any way.

Hugh Mcllhone, sworn, deposed—l am one of the land tax valuers. In January last'Vernon told me he had agreed to do Gudgeon's work for £30. Vernon has never made any claim to me for a specific sum.

At this stage, at the suggestion of the Bench, the item £24 for extras was struck out of the bill of particulars. His Worship then gave judgment for £20 for plaintiff with costs, £4 15s.

SMAEDON V. GHEENVILLE Claim £10, damages.

Mr Miller for plaintiff, and. Mr Dodd for plaintiff. Samuel T. Smardon, sworn, deposed—l am the plaintiff in this case. I took some premises from Mr Adlam, at Shortland, at a rental of 43 per week. I produce the last receipt. I never had any transaction with Mr Greenville in the renting at all. (Witness here produced a bailiff's authority to distrain his goods, signed by Greenville). I always iooked on Mr Adlam as my landlord. My reason for not paying rent was because I received, a notice from certain natives not to ipay rent to any one except W. H. Taipari or Mr Stewart. The day after I received the notice the bailiff, Alexander, came and took possession, and continued in possession for 12 days, for which I now seek .compensation. I was put to considerable annoyance. . '„ . By Mr Dodd—When .1 went to work I was refused admittance, and told to go to Mr Dodd for a permit to go in' and 1 out, which was given; Before I received the notice from the natives I owed about 12s rent.

Samuer Alexander, deposed that he had entered the plaintiff's premises, and continued in possession on an authority from Mr Greenville.

Judgment for plaintiff, 20« and costs, £2 9s.