RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume V, Issue 829, 24 June 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Friday, .Tune 23. (Before J. Giles, Esq., E.M.) Timothy Sheahan, landlord of the Nelson Hotel, was fined 5s for having neglected to keep clean a chimney. Luudon v. Cameron, a case in which an information had been laid forassault, was dismissed, neither complainant nor defendant appearing. crra, cases. Sullivan v. Jacklin.—Claim for £6l 4s Bd. No appearance, struck out. Smith v. Pickering and Vinall.— Claim for £8 lis. The sum of £7 3s was admitted by the defendants, who pleaded not indebted as to the remainder. The disputed item had reference to alleged short delivery of milk, and the plaintiff having failed by the evidence produced to establish beyond doubt the correctness of his claim, judgment was given for the amount admitted, £7 3s and costs. Parker and Garsides v. Hayne.— Claim for £lO 15s. The defendant had filed a set-off amounting to £lO lis, and paid 4s into Court. The plaintiff denied the correctness of the set-off, and the evidence of the defendant was taken upon the matter. According to the statement of the latter, he was employed, on May 23rd, by the plaintiff to do certain work to the Great North Lead Hotel. This work consisted of converting five rooms into two rooms, fixing the scrim, and making a passage the entire length of the building. The price agreed upon for this work was, in the first instance, £5, but in consequence of certain additions it was increased to £G. The work agreed to under the contract was completed, and in addition to that there were 300 feet of rough lining boards put up, a mantelpiece was constructed, and sundry other jobs done, amounting altogether to £4 lis.

By the plaintiff: You took me through the house and showed mo some things that required doing. I pointed out many myself. It was agreed that I was to do certain work for £5. The bed rooms at the back were not included in that. I never told any one that I had to put up bed-rooms I told you that I would erect them, but I did not say at what price. The plaintiff called Walter Bull, who stated that he was a carpenter and builder. He had examined the work done by the defendant at the Great North Lead Hotel, and it was a very liberal estimate to fix what was done as representing seven days' work at

16s per day, which was the current rate of wages for carpenters in Westport. By the defendant: I was in the hotel prior to Mr G-arside purchasing, and I know the work you have done. To take down the scrim, and fix it is a light day's work, and the rough boarding could be nailed up easily in half a day. I consider seven days ample for what work you have done. The work is plain, but done satisfactorily. The plaintiff stated that he agreed with Hayne to take down certain partitions, and convert five rooms into two, form a passage, and put up certain bedrooms at the back of the hotel. He was to find all materials, and Hayne was to furnish the labour. He told him what to do, and Hayne agreed to perform the work in a workmanlike manner, and to leave it all ready for paper hanging. Shortly after Hayne started to work he complained that the job was heavier than he had anticipated, owing to the faulty construction of the house. Witness asked if another pound would represent the difference. Hayne said it would, and it was agreed that he was to have £6. The extras charged are for work which was covered by the contract. Ultimately Hayne knocked off work without having erected the bedrooms at the back. He left his tools in the house, and when requested to do the work he at first said he would, but ultimately refused.

By the Bench : The item for stopping leakages in the roof was not in the contract, nor was it understood, I believe, that a mantel-peice was to be erected. Ido not consider myself indebted under the contract as Hayne has not fulfilled the agreement, and for that reason 1 called in a competent judge, and requested him to fix a full valuation upon ihe work done. Hayne stated that all he agreed to perform was to fix the scrim and to do the carpenter's work inside the house. The bed-rooms were to be built outside the house, and were not included in his contract. Among the extras was joiner's work, which was not included in the contract.

His Worship said that the only guide he had as to the value of the work performed was from the evidence of Mr Bull. He could not base his judgment upon the evidence as to the contract. The sum of £o 12s would be allowed, and an additional £1 for work which it was very likely escaped Mr Bull's notice. This, and 4s paid into Court, would reduce the plaintiff's claim to £3 19s—for which amount the judgment would be with costs.

In Jackson v. Spinks, claim for £1 ss, and same v. Pollock, claim for £1 Is, the plaintiff obtained judgment by default.