RESIDENT- MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 192, 12 October 1871, Page 4

RESIDENT- MA GISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

(Before W. L. Simpson, Esq., R.M.)

Thursday, sfs Oct.

Glendening v. Carmack.— Claim, £L2 t being amount due for making three doors and seven wiudows for the Presbyterian Clmrch, Blue Spur. Defendant plearled not indebted, and never employed plaintiff. Air. M C'.y for plaintiff. - . ■ ' Glendening, being Bw ,, rnv deposed— l re.nember making d. .ors and windows in Humphrey's shop. I made them on my own account fur plaintiff— never wrought to Humphrey as a servants I got m>y i: istr uotn »ns from .Cormack . 'Khe instructions were verbal.. Ht» gave me the siia and dimensions on a board.. He -wanted thum d..ne quickly. 1 went to theto get particular measurements.. Hixqiphrey afterwards wrote an agreement. I don't know who asked him. 1 signed it. Cormack signed it also. ■ Th& part where Corniciuk's uame was written is now 'tornoff the agreement. Consider I was working for Cormack. I gave Ciark, of. th& Miisdiiic Hotel, an order on Curmackfor £12. I afterwards gave another small order on him for £1 12s. «v« v Cross-examined by Cormack — I did hear that the doors and windows werecondemned. 1 aaued yon how much you were going to knock off. The reason I gave a second order was that I heard that you had not paid the fir3t, and I wanted my money somehow. 1 have no itlt* how long it would rake to alter the doors. and windows— you said about a 'week. I thought you was then joking. Your name was put to the agreement, and that by yourself. '1 he place is now torn off the agreement. lam positive I saw your name on the document b fore I handed it to you. You then put it carelessly in your pocket. When you came to the shop, Humphrey s.dd to you, " Here is.a man that will make your doors and windows ch..ap." I asked you how much you would* give — you 'answered £12 for the 1 >t. Humphrey went and drew up the agreement, ai.d we signed if. Mr. Copland, who wassnbpcened, being cal.ed, refused to give evidence, as he had not been paid, and Cormack not tendering it to him, he walked away. • • The Bench remarked that he (defendant) was materially injuring his case in fhe way he was acting. He had better !iO and arrange wuh Mr. Copland, and get his evidence, which he did.

W hen Mr. Copland appeared, he' doposed —I am a Solicitor and Barrister of the Supreme Court of New Zealand. I received no documents from Cormack excepring a small memorandum, which was returned to him this morning. I i hi ik 1 have a receipt for £10 in my pos session, but decline to produce it. I cUim my privilege as a Barrister. I will not produce tUe document, m>r any other document in this case, nor divulge their conten s, without ihe authority of Humphrey, from whom the documents were receive I. I handed back to defendant wuat he gave me. I rec ived r the documents in question in my capacity as a iiiinisrer oi cue Supreme Court of Kew Zealand, uud I claim my priviL^es as such. I never received from Cormack receipts given by Humphrey f.»r £10 aud £2: Any documents handed to me-hy Humphrey I am* nut .bound t«> -produce. As a Barrister 1 am not bound to divulje i he conteuts of any documents L-ft in my charge by clients. lam not aivare that I have any documents of defendants in my possession. (At this stage the Magistrate remarked that he had no uowerto compel witness to produce the documents sought t'.>r, as in his capacity as Solicitor and Barrister he has certain pi'ivilt-ges, and riiis wa-. one <>£ tht-m.) 1 receivi-d a paper vgied byCornuck. The paper now before the Court, a part of which is turn off, I b«li«ve I got amongst other papers from flu nphrey..

Alex. Cormack, being sworn, deposed I met iluinpiiruy opposite his ova «r» mis' s. He spo'ce, to me ab »ut the .viiidows sind doors. lie said he would vase them for £12. { never had anyhing tod-» with paintiff. He said he w >uld write an agreement, which he did, utd handed the same to me. The .win|.»ws were to be made within fourteen U\s. He promised mo this. The sashes •vere condemned, f told this to Humphrey. He said he would sent a man to put hem all rijht. 1 t>ld him I would not lave plaintiff. He sent .Collins,' who made the alterations. "Tlis time was five lrtys and a-half, . and my. own time was wo days. Humphrey p.ud Cohius fur iia work. I'lnnifciff told me in Ooiioi'dn'a that he w;is drunk all the time he was mtkin< the do<m and windows. [Ivtmph-r-ycame to me for the £12, and told me hat he paid plain; iff. 1 paid him £10, and afterwards £2. 1 received a summons from Clark. I recollect Humphrey asking me for receipts after Clark sued me. 'He ti Jd me chat he would give them to Copi land, who would appear for me. I gave him the documents. I wrote a note to <'oplmd to appear for me. Humphrey told me that he would pay Copland.- I never asked for the agreement that I mig'it sign it. The agreement was torn hef -re I gnve it fc<> him. Sometimes I li^ht my pipe with my p.ipera. When I a^iv.ed with Humphrey, F understood Gl 'ndnning was Humphrey's • servant. He led uih to believe so. 1 paid Humphrey th§ whole, .amount before I .ever opene I the agreement. After Clark presented lm order, I observed Glendehing's name to the agreement. The agreement was written by Humphrey. Humphrey never explained to me why his name was not to the a-rreement. I got the two receipts from Humphrey when I paid him the money. I have heard the evidence of Glendening. He has stated what. IB not frue. My name never was to. the document. I never signed it with pen or pencil.

G. Clark, being -sworn — His evidence went to show that Cormack t»ld li\m that he did not know whose contract it was, thought it was Gleudcniiig's, and saw that Humphrey had recommended (ilendening to him. Cormack subsequently to.d ibiuv that his contract' was with (ilendening, and told him to summons him (Cormack},for the amount of the order, and lose, no tune abonfcit. H» dil so.-

Wm. 'Meare, Being sworn, deposed" to his having had-' a .conversation with de*. fendaut about, at* . order, that , Glarkvjljad got onJjij». / Ife aaii that~hjß.>w t Hjri»*Wf

•plaintiff the money, and . that he wished #> Bee Clark before he would pay plaint tiff. I Atthia stage of the proceedings, the Bench pointed out the fact that the agreement bore only a penny stamp, but on referring to the; Stamp Act,, it was found tHat doevvnents of a like nature with the one iv Court required no stamp' if the amount did not exceed £20. ■Mr. Hu uphrey, being sw.»rn, deposed (at this arage of, the case, Mr. Copland appeared for defend mt)— l know something about the doors and windows <>f the Presbyterian Church, Hlue Spur. To th-j heat Of my -recollection I nut Tormack," and aske 1 hi n if he would sublet tha making of them. He consented. I xn.tde him an offer, which he accepted. The ami unit was £12. I made the doors a>id delivered them. The sum of £10 Was paid to me on account. Afrerw.irds I got -the balince of £2 GlendHniig whs wnrki tg for me, He did not do Ma work satisfactorily. 1 1 isfc L4orL 5, as his work w<ia cjnddmued by the Committee: 1 had to employ another carpenter to alter his work. Cormack never to my kn nvLdg^ signed his name to any wri'ing. Cross-examined by Mr. M'Coy — The doors and window* were made by my directions. The LlO was pai I to me for the doors and windows. I remember Clark suing Cormack. I received the money before Clark sued C >rnvick. Plaintiff was working for me gener-iily. My arrangement. with him, in rtspect to the doois and windows, was that after paying f i .r all materials he w.is to be pai I the remainder. 1 supplied thtJ timber ai.d material. The amount might l>e L 4 or L 5. His account wiih me was o\erdrawn previously. I b icame responsible for some clothes for him. I paid hi.n LI per week to pay his board. He was making wheelbarrows for me, for which 1 paid him 10s each. I remember

an agreement betng signed in my sh»p. It was signed by Grlendening and myself. I believe my name was ou tht piece torn off. lam positive my name was o*i the document. I did not see Cormack sig-i it. I did not reco:nniend Glendening to ( 'orm tck to do the work. 1 have got the receipt I gave Conn ick for the mo'iey.

Cross-examined by Mr. Copland — My .-agreement was to deliver the doors and wiudows for Ll2. Glendening was in my .d.jbt.

By tlie Bench— dirmacK's name wna not on the document. My name was o-i at. f uever siw Cor.'uaclc's name on the <clQeuuiint. He was not in the room •whea 4Ue document w;is signed. The rdiiseu why Glenden ing's nanio is on the document was that he was to get all the money after the materials were pad for. ft was a sub- contract between myself and G'eudeniug Cornvick had nothing to do with. I ionic the contract from Cormaok, and sub-let, it to Glendening. Mr. M 'Coy and Mr. Copland addressed the Bench.

■ The Magistrate remarked that the wiatter had ttken up the time of th<Cmrt for a cotisidara la time, a- id could .easily be brought into small compass The dispute arose through the carelessness of two carpenters. The signature of one of the parties was to thedocu nent, and the other held it ; and it was presuma >le that no other signature was to t'ae d >cu■inent, as it be<>an, I, so and so. It was also presumable that Coi'mack had some Arrangement with Gleudeuing, as hi held the document It wa3 his property Glsnlrin;n^ staged tha Cor nick's nane was written, on the part torn off the document, and Humphrey affirmed lliat hi* nairte, .-mcl tint Oorniack's, was t>n the dnenment. Some one of the three must be stating what was not correct. -' Judgment for plaintiff for amount, with costs of Court, and expenses — execution not to issue for ten days.

. • ' Monday, 9th Oct. Arbuckh v. Sannders. —Claim, £12, for goods supplied No appearance of defendant. Verdict for amount with costs.' Islt&. w jr. Bennztl. — N"o appearance of 'er.h-ir p;irty. Dismissed. Bartler v. Q-ibson — For assault and batfertr, Mr. Copland appeared for B lrt-

ler, and stated that the p irties had made

u> matters, anl (le3irad permission to Withdraw the case. «.s th^ case was a trifl ng one. permission was granted. tLee v. Pine— Pine was charged wHh having, on the morning- of Wednesday last, assaulted- Lee in the CommTciil

stables by striking him on* the head and arms with the handle of a shovel. It ./'appeared that so-ne gentleman h%<\ ■ brought a h»rse fro-n Tokomair.ro, whioh • he wished returned, and ?»greed with Lee to take him to Tokotn liriro. - \\ r h".n Lne

came for the horse, Pine would not allow

hinj to take the hor^e awstv, as he thought -" he was not fii to tak.e the horse, not be ns

sob^r. ■ A scuffle to- ik plac<\ Pine went for the police, but they declined to inter- • fere.- Lee got a cut on the head, and his arms were brnieed. ' Mr. M'Coy, who anpeared for Pine, stated , that he (Pint-) w.« perfectly justified in what he did ; that" he was on his owi\ premises*, being L-we of the Commercial stables, and the hirse was under his charge ; and .he hid the autho- • fit-y -of the owner of the • horse not to

" allow Lee to take him. He quo f ed cases .from "Addison on Torts," aud other legal authorities, showing that a mm was

justified in Train* force agtinat force when his j-ights were encroached, on. -Dr. • Halley., testified to his having dressed the wounds. , ,The . Bench remarked that n« donbfc Pine got a considerable amount of provocation, but was of opinion that n.ore frrce was used than was justifiable. Fie would finethe accng«d in the sum of ss, oosta of Court, and 10s 6d medical fee.