RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VII, Issue 372, 11 July 1874, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

. (Before JpJ.^C. Career, Esq., R.M.)

Tuesday, 7th Juit.

. . Hill v. Mears anil Whittet. — This' was . a -oinjirt for dSIO, damoges csuised bj- tlae <lo£endants having malicouely cut through 'an embankment erected by the plaintiff to keep the workings' dry of a bridge' which he was erecting for the Corporatibn over the Wetherstones Creek in Derwent-street.

Mr. M'Coy appeared for the plaintiff ; Mr. conducted the defence for himself and WKittet.r.r - - .- ■.■-• .i ■> The plaintiff gave evidence as to the contract, and to the 1 expense to which he was put by the> cutting of the dam.

Mr. Holmes, Town Clerk, produced the written contract, and said that the defendants had tendered for the same work.

— Sims,' a -stonemason working for the plaintiff,' remembered a Irian cutting the dam on the Ist July. He thought the man was working! or defendants. He complained of the matter to Whittet, who said that he wanted tho stuff for the retaining wall, and that the plaintiff had not shown him much' consideration. The defendants had delayed his work by cutting a drain near it once before, which had to be pumped outl Cross-examined by defendant. — The trench referred to was cut for the purpose of foundation for culverts, and was necessary. Could not say defendants had purposely obstructed work." % >

W. H. , Smith, inspector of works, did not think that he himself would have acted as the defendants did. He thought the parties had b.e.en at JSross purposes, but would not like to say there was malice between then?.

Defendantin his cross-examination of this witness elicited that the removal of the. footbridge and the solid earth upon which it rested, so as to make a clear channel, was part of their contract, and that flic' other portion of their contract was completed.

Mr. Mears said that he knew nothing of the matter personally ; but the plaintiff's t-videuce had not shown that any damage was done, or that the defendants had caused it, if there was any.. He had, shown that it was. necessary for the completion of the retaining wall to remove the solid st'iiff (where the, footbridge used to stand),- and" it was this removal that'was complained of.

Judgment reserved. * \Hurr6bm?.' Pope and YeenJ. — Mr. jM'Coy for the plaintiff ; Mr. Henderson " for the defendants This wfes ' a rehearing. The evidence- was not very materially different from that giren before. Yeend deposed that Kingßland,'who had been most concerned in ,th# employment of the ( plaintiff, was >only a driver and not a partner/and that tne plaintiff was-realTy in the employment of Mr. Cox, at Clyde. The plaintiff proved, as before, that he was not Cox's servant, but the Company's, meaning by " the Company " Yeend, Pope, and Kingsland, whose names were on a coach •in which they all had travelled, or which they had driven.' Mr. Henderson submitted that Kingsland wa3 not a partner, and had no~ authority to bind Yeend and Popa; Oh the other hand it was submitted that it- was of no consequence whether he was a partner or not, as he had been allowed' to ' hold ' himself out as one ; and if not one> had> been allowed to deceive the plaintiff by acting as such. Judgment reserved. ; ' ' '