Defended Cases.

Thames Star, Volume XI, Issue 3672, 1 October 1880, Page 2

Defended Cases.

"■"'•''■ H. LADNER V, JAME3 SAT/ Claim, £20, breach of contract. Mr Miller appeared for plaintiff and Mr Brassey for defendant. H. Ladner deposed that he was a carpenter and knew defendant, who lived at Puriri. On the 16th of last month he went at the request of defendant to Puriri, and after some conversation it was agreed that he should receive 12s per day and 7s per day for a man to remove and re-erect a stable. Mr Say said he would make other arrangements afterwards. After commencing the work and taking off the roof of the stable the defendant asked witness to take the work by contract. Offered to do it for £16, at which | defendant laughed, saying £6 was enough. He refused to do it for twice that sum, and then defendant refused to allow the work to proceed. The stable was a large one, and would have taken a month to take down and re-erect. After making the arrangement with Say.be had refused several other jobs near home. By Mr Brassey—He was not drunk on the Sunday previous to commencing the the work, nor did the defendant-complain of the way the work was being done, lie considered he was out of pocket £20 by the breach of the agreement. Joseph Ibbetson, deposed, that he had been engaged by last witness to assist in pulling down and erecting a stable at Puriri for Mr Say, Had gone to work on a Monday morning, but after working half a day Ladner to 1 d him that Say •wanted the work done -by contract, and work was stopped. Had not been paid. James Say deposed he met Ladner in the'street and asked him to come to Puriri to see some work he wanted done. Ladner came up, when an arrangement was made at 12s per day for himself, and 7s per day for a labourer. The agreement was made from that day. After seeing the manner in which the men went to work he decided to stop the work and get it done by contract. It was likely to be a long job at the way they were working at it. The work has since been taken for £6 by Mr Belford. There was about one week's work. Had given Ladner. 10s in cash to pay for small matters wanted from the 'store, isucli as drinks, &c. .

By Mr Miller—Had employed Ladner to full down and reerect the stable at 12s per day. Had not complained during the time the work was going on, but at dinner time. Had said be would not pay him any longer at 12s per day. Judgment for £o 4s and costs. BOBBETT V. ADLAM. Claim, £21 goods supplied before and after defendant had filed a declaration of insolvency. Mr Miller for plaintiff, Mr Dodd for defendant. The defence was that defendant bad received his discharge in bankruptcy after the goods were obtained. Mr Miller contended that the order did not release defendant from paying for the goods he had obtained" between the time of filing his declaration and receiving his discharge. The Court said the point was a very important one, and judgment was reserved till Monday. Court adjourned. ' -.-'■■■-