RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT THIS DAY.

Thames Star, Volume XXIV, Issue 4627, 2 November 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT THIS DAY.

(Before H. Kenrick, Esq., E.M.)

Taipari v. G. H. McKenzie and O. D. Grant.—Mr Miller for plaintiff.—The case was to" recover possession of premises occupied by defendants.—The plaintiff, Werope Taipari, swore that he was one of the owners of Block 28, Shorfcland. A shop and bakehouse occupied by Mr Grant, one of the defendants, ia on it. No rent had been paid in connection with the allotment for seven quarters. £5 19s was the amount owing.—Evidence was also .given that the property was worth about 14s per week.—The defence was that O. D. Grant was the lessee of the ground in question under a lease from ■— Soppett, which was produced, and the ground was then in the possession of Grant, who paid rent for it to — Gold water. —The Bench said that it appeared clear by the deeds that Taipari was the landlord; of the ground, and ordered that unless the rent be paid within four weeks, possession of the premises must be given up, and ordered defendants to pay costs/ £2 13s.

•Bickifc v. Hawley.—Claim, £A 4s, a balance of account.—Judgment was given for the. amount claimed and costs, 14s.

Savage v; Jackson.—Claim, £16 6s. £2 Is 6d had been paid into Court, but the plaintiff's solicitor (Mr Miller) declined to accept it.—The plaintiff deposed he knew the defendant's barge— the Mystery,—»and it had been brought to plaintiff ..to, ..be altered to a ketch. This had been done, and the account produced was the price of it, The total value of the work done was £38 6a, and £22 had been paid on account. Witnesses named H. Smith and Bichard Smith, said they considered the work was fairly done, and reasonably charged for.—Frederick Jackson (the defendant) laid he had instructed

plaintiff to do the work above referred to, (or which no price was fixed. The work , was all new except a small piece of the deck. Found that Savage's men were, when he went to hurry the work up, at work at something else: saw the men working at steamers on the riven . The time taken was far too long, and the charge made for- it excessive; had agreed to submit the matter of dispute to arbitration. Considered £25 ample payment for the work done.—A witness named John Law had built the barge altered for the defendant, and knew what work was done by plaintiff, valaed at £24 Is 6d. Considered tbe work was not well done.—The plaintiff was recalled to give some further particulars of time employed on the work.—The Bench said it appeared that the work had been done, and two witnesses for the plaintiff swore as to the time occupied, and one independent witness had considered £36 a fair charge for the work. The balance of testimony was in favor of the plaintiff—Judgment was given for the amount claimed (less £2 Is 6d paid into Court) and costs, £3 Bs.