R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3722, 29 January 1891, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MASTERTON—THURSDAY. (Before Colonel Roberts, R.M.) CIVIL LIST. Ewington & Sons v Clias, Higgins. Claim £B. Mr Pownall, for the defendant, admitted the claim and offered to pay £1 a month. As this was not accepted, judgment was given for the amount claimed, with 6s. S&me vH. Westbrook. Claim £7. Judgment for amount, and costs 10s. F Wiight v J Cooper—Claim, £1 6s. Judgment for amount, with costs, Bs. B, J. and A. Brsoska v. Hoffiens. Claim, £5 8s id, for work and labour done. Mr Beard for plaintiffs, Mr Pownall for defendant. A Brzoska, sworn, stated that his father and himself had seen Hoffiens and offered to cut his grass for 13s per acre. Hoffiens considered this was too much, but said he would pay lOd per hour. This was accepted, and they commenced work on December 10th aud worked till the 19th. No complaint had been made about the cutting until they went for the money. Hoffiens then said some of the giass had been left uncut. The money had been applied for, but had not been paid.

By Mr Pownall: They hadarrangei to work at 10d per hour, but to cu no particular amount. They had cu the whole of the grass off the paddocl where the grass was, but had left tba which it was impossibln to cut owinj to tbe roots ans sand. They had cu as much aa they could. They ha< asked for another man, to get thi work done as quick as possible, a they had some of their own grass t< cut. The work wag taken by himsel and father. Jacob Brzoska, sworn, corroborate! the evidence of the last witness, ant stated that Hoffions was present whet the work was being crrried on, bu never complained, The money hue not been paid. By Mr Pownall: They wen engaged by the hour, and could leave off when they liked. They did not try to mow the grass amongst the roots. He was not in a hurry to oul his own grass. The defence was that the work had been done in such a negligent and slovenly manner that moro harm than good had been done. Tbe easy spots had been picked out and the tough ones left. In previous years the whole of the grass had been cut. A set-off for damage done was entered. J Hoffiens, sworn, stated that he had engaged the plaintiffs to mow by the hour, on conditions the whole grass was cut by a certain time. The contract was taken at lOd per hour, and the work was to be completed by 20th January, so that he could got other work done beforo his lease expired en Ist of January. Tho plaintiffs were two days late in starting, They mowed fairly well at first, but in a few days they asked if they could go and mow their own grass. This witness refused unless they could get good men as substitutes. As they could not get men they went on with tho .vork. A few days afterwards he went out and found they had qono, leaving a quantity of grass uncut beneath the swath. There was also a quantity near the creek untouched. l£e estimated there were at least three tons of grass left on the ground, By this he had lost fully £6. His le-ise expired on January Is";, and ho had to cut oats so that he could not get in the hay. By Mr Beard : Had no time to get men to finish the work started by Brzoska. Was present on tho last two days the plaintiffs were there, but had not coniplajned, to them, ,

Charles and Haas Hoffiens corroborated tho ovidenco of tho last witness. After a longthy argument by counsel, judgmout was given for plaintiffs for £2. 89. 4d and costs.