R.M.COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3527, 4 June 1890, Page 2

R.M.COURT.

CARTERTON-TUESDAY.

(Before Colonel Moris, RM.)

Mary Harris v, Joe Chicken. Hi Middleton for plaintiff. Claim £l2 money lent. Judgment by default lor amount claimed and cost Sis, solicitor's fee, 21s.

James Peters v John Hopwood. Mr Acheson for plaintiff. Claim £1 2s, Judgment by dehult for amount claimed and costs 10s..

Henry Mockton v H. M. Petersen. Mr Bunny for judgment creditor, Mr Aolieson for defendant. Mr Bunny examined defendant at great length as to bis means. The defendant, who is a cripple, stated that he was not able to undertake heavy work, and consequently had little to depend on, and was not in a position to make-any offer as to the settlement of the account. In eliciting information as to the means of tbe defendant, a rather novel idea was presented to' the Court as to his means, which was that God provided him with all needful necessaries, without the receivor exerting himself, or troubling himself as to his finding any employment. No order was made. Mads Gunderson v Win Booth & Co. Mr Bunny for plaintiff, Mr Beard for defendants. Claim £lB for balance due for draining work done on the Middle Bun, East Taratahi.

Martin Elgar, deposed that ho was manager for the defendants at the time the ditching was done by the plaintiff,. Could not say whether the defendant's eamo at any time to look at the work while it was in , progress, Saw the work occasionally in my position as manager. I measured] the work ivhen it was completed at the request of the plaintiff, The drain is not as deep as tho one previously made by the plaintiff; the drain should be about 11 inches deeper than it is to correspond with the previous 64 chains done by the plaintiff, I told the plaintiff that the drain was not deep enough. I took the measurement of the depth of the first drain in company with Messrs Dorsett and Gayfer, and it was slightly under four feet,- the average depth of the last piece of the drain about 14 chains, is not more than two feet nine inches. When I took the guage ior tho purpose of measuring the drain the plaintiff said that lie would not recognise the guage as he did not contract to do the work by the guage. I got the guago from Mr Booth, By Mr Beard ;It is not the place of the employer to ask me to pass the work, but the employed. I did not pass the 16 chains as askpd to do by the plaintiff as it was not made deep enough. I doubt very much whether anyone would undertake now to complete tho drain according to specifications, and propably would not be able to get the job done till the dry season set in again, and tho loss to the defendants would be considerable as the swamp had • boon sown with grass seed, which would be unlikoly to grow on account of it not being properly drained. I hp,vo never by any words or actions led the plaintiff to beliovo that I considered the 44 chains of drain as well done as the 64 chains previously done by him.

Hans Oonradsen deposed ihat he measured the drains and they varied from 4ft. to Bft 9in,, according to the nature of the surface of the ground, but he considered that Ilia job was done in a workmanship mannor. Plaintiff recalled stated that since he had given evidence on a previous occasion he had measured the whole of the drain made by him, and the measurement averages two to four feet at the top, and the depth is from 18 inches to Bft,

At thi3 stago the Court adjourns for lunch, and on resuming M Beard addressed the Court on tli merits of tlio case.

Win, Booth deposed that he let the contract to the plaintiff for the draining of the swamp on the middle run, the drain to be Bffc wide at the top, 4ft deep and 4ft wide at the bottom which the plaintiff agreed to do .at 13s per chain after having worked at the job for a week on trial he (the plaintiff) agroedtodothejob for the amount specified, There were about a' 100 chains in all, to be done and I premised him tha*, if he completed the job in a oertain time I would give him a bonus £5, The first 64 chains after being measured turned out to be a litttle less than the specified depth, but payment was mado for it in full, again last December he came to ine, and asked to be allowed to go on again atthe drain, and was told that he might, also that if he finished the drain, to my satisfaction, I would still give him the bonus as previously promised, but the drain not being according to specifacation, the job has not been passed, and I havo complained to him of tins. Ho promised that if his mate was agreeable he would deepen it,, but it has not been done and through the drain not being made at the proper season it would be a difficult job to get it done at this season of the year on account of the quantity of water, The loss in consequence cannot be easily computed,

To Mr Bunny; I neyer passed any work it was loft to tho manager and Ilia report was final. The bonus was offered to induce the contractor to exert himself to get the job done before the winter set in, After bearingtbe ovidonco ofß. W,Dorset, tho plaintiff was nonsuited, j

EKBTAHUNA-FEIDAY. (Before Colonel Boberts, E.M.) Huxtable v Higgins, Judgment for plaintiff.

| Smith v Hounslow, Claim £lO. Mr Gould for plaintiff, Mr Toss will for Official Assignee, Adjournment applied for by defendant's counsel to next sitting of Court,. Granted, defendant paying costs LI 4s. D. Young vW. Hogg. Claim L 7 15s. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs 19s Gd. Burke v Hounslow. Mr Gould for plaintiff. Claim L2l9s 3d. Judgment for plaintiff, wish oosts 18s. Tidswell v Hounslow. Claim L2 19s (Id. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs 18s, Tbe Court then adjourned till next Court Mr Gould and Mr Tosswill itt' dulged in some strong language (6 day, in which personalities were freely exchanged.