RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume V, Issue 894, 30 November 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Tuesday, Noyembek 28. (Before J. Giles, Esq., E.M.) PUBLICAN'S LICENSES. A license to retail spirituous liquors was granted to Patrick Monaban, of Eeeftou, luangahua; and a renewal of license to Elizabeth Keating, of the Alpiue Hotel, Westport. CIVIL CASES. Ward v. Hanna.—Claim for £7 ss, being balance due ot an account amounting originally to £l7 ss, of which £lO was received from the defendant. Mr Pitt appeared for plaintifF, and Mr Home defended. Mr Pitt stated that the claim was for labour performed under au agreement, and for a number of extras not included in the terms of the contract. The facts were that the defendant had called for tenders for erecting a fourroomed cottage. The specifications stated that an old building, known as the British and American Hotel, was to be carefully taken down, and the material used in the erection of the cottage. Finding, however, that the cost would be greater than he desired to incur, the defendant altered his views, and decided to construct a two-roomed cottage only. An agreement was entered into by the defenfendant and the plaintiff, whereby the latter undertook to perform the carpenter's work only in the erection of the two-roomed cottage according to the specifications, all material to be found by the defendant. He should prove that the work had been per formed in a workmanlike manner under the agreement, as also additional work.

John "Ward stated that he was a carpenter, and the plaintiff in the action. He contracted with the defendant in June last. The agreement produced, was that which he entered into, and he performed the contract under the agreement. He afterwards made alterations by the defendant's order different from the plans and specifications. One item was to take down a building forming portion of the British American hotel. Witness asked whether it was to be piece work or day work, and the defendant elected that it was to be day work, in ordpr that extra care might be used so as not to injure the materials. Witness was employed four days in taking down the building for which he charged 14s per day, and he paid a labourer for two days' assistance £l. He charged a day at 14s fo*" putting up wrought in place of plain barge boards ; three quarters of a day for weather-boarding the back of the cottage in place of lining it only as specified; 15s 6d for extra labour in using old material, and 7s 6d for necessary alterations in order to use an old door instead of a new one. By Mr Home : The work was to be done according to specifications. The specifications provided that the British and American hotel was to be oarefully taken down by the contractors. The specifications also provided that a verandah was to be constructed. I have not erected a verandah. William Struthera, painter, stated that he had seen the work which the plaintiff had done for the defendant. It was executed in a fair and workmanlike manner. By Mr Home : I am not a carpenter. Walter Bull, builder, stated that he had not iuspcctod the work in question, but he had seen it. The charges included in the plaintiff's hill of particulars w T cre particularly reasonable, with the exception of the charge for taking down the old- building which witness thought high. By the Bench : If I contracted to construct a two-roomed cottage, in conformity with the specifications as far as they would apply which had been drawn up for building a four-roomed cottage, I should consider myself bound to take down the old buifding as provided ; but I should not consider myself so bound uuder the subsequent agreement entered into by Ward. To take down a building is what would be termed carpenter's work. A witness employed by the plaintiff to assist in taking down the hotel gave evidence. For the defence, George Moody, carpenter, and the defendant gave evidence. G-. Moody said he had examined the Work. It was not performed according to specifications. He should consider the plaintiff bound by the original specifications. He should consider he would have to take down the old building. The defendant stated that the work Jhad not'been completed; the windows were not hung, and mouldings had not been put round the doors. The contract price was £lO 10s. He had paid the plaintiff £lO, retaining the 10s in order that he might complete the work. It was quite understood that Ward would have to take down the old buildiug as a portion of the contract. No such conversation as described by Ward took ptoee about piece work and day work—at least, not after the contract was signed. He (defendant) had spoken to Ward some time previously, and he had then proffered to take it down for «£l. The alterations he described to the front door had become necessary through his carelessness; the door required cutting down, and in doing that Ward made it too small, and it then had to be spliced. Counsel on each sido addressed the

Court, and his Worship gave judgment for the plaintiff for £3 14s 6d and costs, together with witnesses and counsel's costs. He considered that the plaintiff was only bound by the original specifications, so far as they applied to the erection of the two rooms. The item for taking down the building was reduced to £2, and removal of cottage to 10s. Erom the original contract 10s was deducted to cover work not performed, and the charge for working up old material and altering the door were struck out altogether. John Lawrence v. Bartolo , Zurchetti.—Claim for 10s for expenses as a witness in cause tried in 11. M. Court.

Adjourned in consequence of the court feeu for the liearing not having been paid.