RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

West Coast Times, Issue 651, 25 October 1867, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

(Before a. a. FitzGerald, Esq., R.M.) THURSDAY, OCTOBER 24. There was no police sheet this morning. CIVIL CASE?. Docld v. Sullivan and Dodd v. Smith— In these cases his Worship gave judgment for tho plaintiff for L 9 3s (in each case) : being L 6 3s passage money from Melbourne to Hokitika, LI one week's board, and L 2 for damages sustained by the plaintiff by the defendant's non-fulfilment of agreement. Spiers and party v. Lord and Griffiths. Mr Button for tho plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sought to recover L 26 7s 6d, the balance due them for cutting tracks for the defendants ; L 2 17s had been paid into court. The agreeinent(produced) stated that "monthly payments will be made of seventy-five per cent, on the computed amount of work performed. The remaining twenty-five per cent, on completion of the survey." The. defence set up was that the plaintiffs were not entitled to receive the remaining twenty-five per cent, until the plans were sent in, and the work passed by the Government, from whom the defendants had taken the contract. His Worship reserved judgment in the case till the following day. Taylor y. M'Govoran. — Mr Button for the plaintiff, Mr Rees for the defendant. Plaintiff sought to recover tho sum of L 55, halance due on a contract for carpenter's work to defendant's hotel (Rising Sun, Bovell street). Bichard deposed that he took a contract from the plaintiff for certain carpentering work. The work had been completed, and Mr Smith, the architect, had given him a certificate and an order on the defendant for payment of L 55, the balance of the contract, Defendant refused to pay the order. Cross-examined by Mr itees. — Tho work is finished according to the plans and specifications. Never told tho defendant the roof was not finished according to the plans and specifications, and that ho would complete the work. Witness told the defendant Mr Smith had told him (witness) to have a look at tho roof. Witness did so. He went there on two different occasions. On the first occasion ho was there about an hour. It came on to rain, and he was obliged "to knock off." The roof leaked a little. The'paper was slightly discolored in some places. Most of the nails in the I roof had washers. Witness gave the men an immense number of, washers, and told them to use them. The ridging is put on properly. Witness believes it is fourteen inch ridging. Ho bought it as that. Could not say the water did not come in in consequence of tho ridging being too short. The window on tho staircase was not hung. Thero was no moulding to the skirting up stairs. The piping was, wit- j ness believed, as specified. It is four- ! inch. It is a long time since he saw the specifications. When last he saw them they were in defendant's possession. The partition between the kitchen and diningroom on the kitchen side is not lined. There arc no fastenings on the windows below. There are no pilasters to the bar counter. The counter was carried out according to the plans. The troughing for caarying off the water does not run out to the end of the building. The laps of the iron on the sides are sufficient. — Re-examined by Mr Button — Defendant was present when Mr Smith examined the work and passed it. — This closed the plaintiff's case. — Mr Eees for the defence, contended ;that the work was not completed according to the plans and specifications. It was not finished in a workmanlike manner. The roof leaks, and the rain had damaged the paper. The defendant was not aware tho architect had passed the work, until the plaintiff presented him with an order for L 55. His client refused to pay the . amount of the order till the work was properly completed. Mr Eees called Charles Granger Smith, who produced the plans and specifications. The witness stated they were the original specifications. The whole work, including the roof, was done according to the specifications. The nails witness saw in the roof had washers on. It was dry weather when ho passed the work. It had rained just before. Thero were no stains in the ceiling. The ridging was fourteen inches. Witness called afterwards and noticed the roof leaked. Tho defendants had tho old iron used again for the roof. Witness told him it would be impossible to make tho roof water-proof. After the plaintiff had received the certificate witness told him lie had better examine the roof, as it leaked. Defendant remarked to witness he had been in a great hurry to give

plaintiff the order, but lie would have to wait for the money. Cross-examined by Mr Button — The iron was very inferior ; it had been used in the former roof, A roof with iron such as was put on would be likely to leak. The actual value of the work done by the plaintiff is worth more than the amount contracted for. He believed plaintiff would be a loser .by the contract, No fault could be found with the work. The roof leaks in consequence of the old iron being used again. It is quite possible the roof woi'M not leak at first and leak afterwards. When he inspected tho roof he could see no stain. We had had some rain, but not such severe weather as we have had lately. Mr M'Goveran was c?Ued, and stated that ho entered into a contract with the plaintiff to perform certain carpentering work. On the 20th September the pla-ntiff presented an order for L 55;5 5; witness refused to pay it unil he had seen -he architect, Mr Smith. He did not know the work had been passed. Plaintiff afterwards worked two days at the roof. He acknowledged his men had not put washers on the nails. Witness pointed out to the plaintiff other parts of the work which were not completed ; he said he would finish them and make good job of it. One nail in five iiad. a washer under it. Plaintiff had since daubed some white lead on tho heads of the nails. Witness also pointed out to him that there were no fastenings on the windows dowi>. stairs —no pilaster 3to the bar counter. Plaintiff said he would complete the work. The spouting does not ran tho water off. In consequence of the roof leaking, the paper and lining in seven of the rooms are damaged. The papering, lining and painting cost L6B. Taonias Peak stated that he was a builder. He had inspected the improvements at the defendant's hotel. Ho examined the roof. There is no "flashing" except on the ridge, and the rom goes through tho roof into the front room. The laps of the iron in some cases is not sufficient. The greater part of the nails have no washers under them. The rain had gone through into all the bedrooms with the exception of one. The paper is considerably discolored in the front room, and slightly in the other rooms. The guttering is insufficient. There aro no fastenings to the window openings in the bar, or to the window in the bar parlor. There are no pilasters to the bar counter. James Holmes deposed that he was a paperhanger and glazier. Ho had worked for the defendant. He was in the hotel about fourteen days ago. During the heavy rain the roof had leaked, and the ra^n had damaged the paper. Mr W. B. Armson deposed that he was an architect. He had inspected the roof of the Rising Sun Hotel, jit was not watertight. Most of the rooms leak in the ceiling. Tho nails in the roof wcro put on, with few exceptions, without washers. The iron used on the roof ivas old iron. There were holes in it without nails to them. The window on the staircase, so far as witness could remember, was hung on pivots without fastening. There was no moulding to the skirting up stairs, nor pilaster to the bar counter. His Worship remarked that, after hearing the evidence of Mr Smith, he could not but give a judgment for the plaintiff. The defendaut had told plaintiff he had been in a great Lurry to give plaintiff his last certificate, but plaintiff would have to wait for the money. The best had been done with the iron that could bo. It wns old iron and had been used before. As to its not being largo enough, certainly the plaintiff could not stretch it. Judgment was given for the amount claimed, L 55 with costs. Edwards v. Parsons. — Mr Eees for the defendant. — The plaintiff sought to recover the sum of L 22 15s, being balance due for board and lodging, billiards and refreshments, extending from March 16th to August 6th. Plamtiff had filed a setoff amouting to L 23 10s, for services as clerk and bookkeeper from the 21st April till the 30th September, at 30s a week, less four weeks, during which he was absent. — Tho plaintiff stated that from the 21st of May he made arrangements with the defendant to keep his books for him, in payment for his board and lodgiug. Defendant was not entitled to make any charge, as it was distinctly understood that he was to receive Lis board and lodging in consideration of his keeping the plaintiff's books. — His Worship refused to allow the set-off, and gave judgment for the amount claimed. The Court was then adjoixrned t ;i l eleven o'clock next day.