Magistrate's Court.

Waimate Daily Advertiser, Volume IV, Issue 225, 5 July 1902, Page 3

Magistrate's Court.

0 (Before Mr J. Keddell.) Tuesday, July 3. clyil ca3ks. Michael Broham v. J Simpson, junr., olaim £1 for sinking a well. Mr Hamilton for piaintiff, Mr Crawford (Oamaru) for defendant. Plaintiff gave evide ce that he had been engaged to sink and concrete the well for Simpson, junr., and that he refused payment an.l disputed the price. John Ruby, well sinker gave evidence that the price of well-sinking was 2i per foot under 20 foot, 6d per foot aftei that. If they got water at 10 feet they knocked off. Sinking meant only taking the earth out.

Stephen Boreham, labourer, understood well-sinking. The usu*l price was 2s per 20 feet with an increase of 6d per foot after that. A shallow well was worth more. Sinking meant just putting the well down till water was obtained. Knew Messrs {Simpsons' farms. Would aooner sink a well on Simpson serr's, as he would have to go further for water and would not have to work in it. On Simpson junr's. land water was near the surface.

To Mr Crawford : He had no lucrative occupation just now. Had not made himself busy over this case. His work did net cons st in getting up agitations and engaging in secretaryship of Workers' Union. Ha was honorary secretary of the Workers' Union. Had assisted Mr Hamilton in getting up the case, sending him notes occasionally as secretary of the Workers' Union. Had found or»t that Mr Simpson, senr, had made no agreement with Simpson, junr, as regards the well Did not inspect the well at McCulloch'a bridge, but knew the land well.

Joseph Corcoran, farmer, remembered seeing Mr Simppor., senr, one d>»y in January. He ask> d where Mr Broham lived and witness direct :d him. He said he was going to see übout well-sinking. Mr Crawford said his client'B opposition to this claim \v >s chiefly induced by the Workers' Union pushing it on and bringing a number < f witnesses, which would mean heavy costi if the case were lost. The contract was made by Simpson, Renr, who wanted a well himself and thought he would make his son a present of one to save him carrying water.

W. Simpson, junr, made no contract to have a well sunk Saw Mi Broham, being directed by Mr t.'ocoran. Said his father sent him to see when he would start the wells arranged for the day before. He said it «as close to harvest and he had sent his man away that morning. He a knd the distances to witness' and his fither's place. He asked if it would do to sink witness' well first and he said i would not do as his father badly wanted water! Broham said he did not think his father would object and he said he would Btart on witness' well and if his harvest) were not far forward he would do the one at Redcliff. Nothing was said about carrying the gear till his well was done. Then Broham asked witness to take the windless and cement to Redcliff when he was going. He said he would not have time to finish the well till after harvest. To Mr Hamilton : His reason for not paying the olaim was that he made no bargain about sinking the well and understood his father was paying for it. 3Jg the Bench: At Studholme Broiiam asked for money and his said he would pay when the well was finished; Wm. Simpson, senr, farmer, Redcliff, deposed to meeting Broham at Waimate saleyardß and arranging for having two wells sank. He said he would sink them. Wanted the Redcliff well sunk at once and he said it would be 2s per foot for the first 20 feet and 6d extra for each foot after that. Said he wanted both timbered as well and he said concrete would cost little more and would be better. Plaintiff said he would put it in if witness found cement and shingle. The prije including concreting was to bo 28 per foot. Thought) the well at McCullooh'a Bridge would be 50 feet. He said 2s was very little.' Told him ohat if he didn't make wages witness would make it up. To Mr Crawford : When passing his son's place he saw his daughter-in-law ~vrying water and he ordered the well to be sunk there to save her the labour. No claim had been made on him for the well. He was quite satisfied to pay for both wellt when finished. To Mr Hamilton : Did not know the usual price of sinking, but would not have it done without being either timbered or concreted. Would expect to have the lot done at 2s per foot. •Michael Duggan, farmer, Studhelme Junotion, knew Simpson and Broham. Introduced the latter to Simpson. Two wells were to be sunk, one at Redcliff and the other at McCalloch'u Bridge. The Redcliff one was to b« sunk first. The price was to be 2s per foot for good ground, with water at 40 feet. Mr Bimpson wanted them timbered and Broham suggested concrete. Understood Mr Simpson was to eupply cement and shingle. To Mr Hamilton : Understood the agreement to he 2s for the sinking and i xtra for concreting. -When the Redoliff one was sunk a day was to be pub in concreting and the other one started. Simpson at first thought 2s too much, but finally Agreed to give the 2s.

T e Bench sai.l she contract was made with (Simpson, senr, and he wag the person to sue. The contract diill exiftted though incomplete. Plaintiff would be nonsuited, with costs against him £3 2s.

Trezise v. John Henry Mitchell and Jas. Morton. MrCleminls for pLintiff and Mr Hamilton for defendant, who pkaded not indebted. Mr Clement said plaintiff had b3en working at 17s 61 per week on the farm of the la'e Mr Geo Morton. He w.i3 ti have £2 per week diuing the harvest and after tint he claimed ihat he was to get a rise Lo £1 per week. Charles Trezise, labourer, Morven, deposed to getoing 17s 61 per week up to January and lie was promised £1 a week after that. Worked fmr days at this and then harvest came on an 1 he was t > get £2 per week. - He worked eight weeks and one day. \Va9 given £l6, but did not take this as full settlement. To "Sot Hamilton : Was always paid up co dat''. The Ap;il payment wa** not. William Robertson, hbourer, M irven, WB3 working at Morton's with Trezise, who was leading in. Witness was paid lOd per hrur and Trezise was similar work. When it was not fie to work at harvest he was doing other work.

The defence was that plaintiff was to get £2 per week for Bix weeks h>rve-t and there was no arrangement as ti paying him £1 per w ek. He whs pud £l(3 oS Aj.ril 12, in full settlement to date and to be given £1 p*r week till the end of May. Jas. Morion deposed to settl'ng with Trezise to date on April 12. He did »ot ask for a rise. Harvet wiges were arranged before it commenced—£2 per week for six weeks. When he was paid on Saturday he said he was quite satiefied, but ou the Monday he asked for £1 per weelp and defendant agreed to give it hiriHill the end of May. He left on the 3rd at four days' notice and thus kept a team idle for seventeeu days. About ten days after he left ho ctme for his wages aud sad £3 was due to him. Refused to pay him till defendant had got a man. He was doing general farm work after April 12th. To Mr Clements : Plaiutiff did not say he heard defendant was getting another man to take his plaoe and that was why he left. In the two previous harvests the harvest lasted barely six weeks. Jiiogment was given for £3, with costs, £1 Is, allowed to defendant. Richard Cleir was ordered to pay 4s per week maintenance for his illegitimate obild till it reached the age of 14 years.