R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XII, Issue 3870, 27 July 1891, Page 2

R. M. COURT.

EKETAHUNA—FRIDAY.

(Befora Colonel Roberts, R.M.)

Constable Roche v Dickson.— Wheeling a barrow along the footpath. Defendant pleaded guilty, and was fined Is, and costs 7s. Same v E. James, similar offence. Fined Is and coses 7s.

Geo. W. Phillips v Kiernan and Freer.—Claim for wages, LI2 Is 9d. Mr Gould for plaintiff. Freer appeared and pleaded that as be was not a partner in the iob, be was not liable. The other defendant, Ki6rnan, did not appear. Plaintiff, sworn, stated that time was not disputed, and that he bad kept bis own time. One witness was called for tbe defence. Plaintiff wa3 nonsuited on the ground that there was no proof of partnership. Turner & Co v F. Oarr—Claim L 9 16s lid. Judgment for amount and costs.

Henry Beaufort v Alfredton Road Board.—Claim for surveyor's work done for the Board, L 49 7s. Mr Gould for plaintiff, Mr Beard for defendants. Counsel, in opening the case, stated that plaintiff bad made certain plans of the Ihuraru road. The contention of the defendant was that the plans were not accepted by tbe Government. Plaintiff, sworn, stated be had agreed to finish Smith's plans for tbe sum stated. He had done so, but Mr Marchant refused to accept them, stating that they were no good for inspection. He therefore completed a survey of the road, and made plans that were accepted. He then waited on the Board and asked for an advance for the fresh survey. The Board appointed a committee, and he was asked to attend. He wrote that he could not attend. He would have prevented the use of his plans had he known that payment of the new plans was objected to. Correspondence showed that they did not refuse payment until they got the plans from the Chief Surveyor. An agreement was handed in which was immediately seized by the clerk as not being stamped. A long discussion then ensued over the agreement. Eventually Mr Gould paid the fine on the agreement, L 5 2s 6d.

Continuing, the plaintiff stated that he gave an order to Mr Benton for the balance of the L2l due to him, namely, LlB. The plaintiff was examined by defendant's counsel at come length. Mr Beard, for the defendant, claimed a nonsuit, on the ground that there was an agreement to do the work for the £2l, and no other agreement had been entered into. Mr Gould mentioned that they did not claim under any agreement, but for a fresh survey. Mr Benton, sworn, stated that he was a member of the Alfredton Road Board. He instructed Mr Smith in the first instance, When it was found that Mr Smith had not completed his work he instructed Mr Beaufort. He went on with the latter work in July. The same amount of forma tion was done at that time as when the present contract was let—about 2i miles. Mr Beaufort took the contract on March 25th, 1890. On February 4th the Board wrote Mr Beaufort, asking him what it would cost to rectify the plans of Smith's, On March 24th he wrote offering to do the work for £2l, to complete in two months. The Board accepted on March 25th. In August a clieque was passed for £l2 3s. On 10th March Mr Beaufort waited on the Board and stated that be had completed Smith's plans. The Survey Office would not accept them, and he would have to make fresh plans. He had received a letter from Mr Marchant, and he would have to make a fresh survey. He said it would be hard on him, but he supposed he must do it. Id would be cheaper than to rectify Smith's old work. He saw Mr Beaufort in reference to these plans, and he said that had the Chairman of the Board gone with him they would have bounced the plans through. He led witness to believe that he was doing more work than he anticipated on account of work shown on Smith's plans that had never been done. He never mentioned that he intended to make any claim until the work had been done. He never asked for instructions from the Board which always refused to entertain any fresh claim. Henry Dunderdale, sworn, stated he was clerk to the Alfredton Road Board. He wrote to Mr Beaufort on 25th March, stating that his offer would be accepted, ho completing the plans in two months. Mr Benton read an extract of letter to the Board in explanation why he had not completed the plans. They had not been used by the Board. His Worship ruled that the plaintiff was bound by his offer of L2l. Judgment was given for the amount paid into Court.

Notice of appeal was given. Costs amounting to L 3 8s were given against the defandants.

FEATHERSTON.—MONDAY.

(Before Colonel Roberts, K. M.)

George Lawrie v. William Phelp Claim for balance due on a pig sold, £2 3s 6d. Mr Acheson for the defendant. Judgment tor" the amount.