WAIKATO DISTRICT COURT. Held at the R M Court, Hamilton. Before F. D. Fenton, Esq., District Judge. Wednesday, 19th January, 1876.

Waikato Times, Volume X, Issue 572, 20 January 1876, Page 2

WAIKATO DISTRICT COURT. Held at the R M Court, Hamilton. Before F. D. Fenton, Esq., District Judge. Wednesday, 19th January, 1876.

National Bank v Jamis Loviie. — Claim, £2G10i91. Mr Whitaker for Plaintiff. No appearance of defendant. Robert MacDonald Waitfc, Acting Manager of the " National Bank of New Z 'aland, (Limited)," Hamilton, itated that the defendant wa/» indebted to the Bank in the sum of £26 10a 9d, which sum was still due and owing. Judgment for plaintiffs for full amount claimad, with costs £6 12s.

Johw Wilson v B F J Ebwabdb. — Claim £50, amount oi dishonoured Promissory Note. Mr Wkitaker appeared for plaintiff. No appearance of defendant. Major John Wilson, Justice of the Pemce, raiding at Cambridge, deposed that defendant wu indebted to him in the amount claimed. Judgment br default for plaintiff with coits £7 128.

I R Vialot v A Bqmnson and William: Walkkb. — Claim £31 for professional services as an architect, rendered by plaintiff to defendants. Mr Wlntakor for plaintiff, and Mr Mad ien for the defendant, Mr Robinson. Mr Madden eubinitted that the plaintiff bad no iecus atandi in Court on the grounds that the plaint did not contain the addreisof the plaintiff and further tint the bill of particulars was nob suflciently explicit a« to tho date of the alleged indebtedneis. His Honor— The omission of the plaintiff*** addross is attributable to the Clerk of ths Court who.se duty it is to OH in the summons, Mr Madden— Further, your Honor, our pie* is " not indebted." Mr Whitaker submitted that the fact of tho defendant bping present in Court and appearing in answer to summons wai sufficient — and cited cases in support of hu argument. As to the ox&3t date of the indebtedness, the date of the year was quite sufficient. The defendant bal only built one hotel, mentioned in bill of particular!, and there could be no difficulty in that matter. Mr Madden said ho wnt instructed by Mr Robinson to state that he, Mr Robinson, never built a Hotel in the year mentioned in tho bill of particulars. If he was compilled in the course of hearing to ask fur an adjournment. Ills Honor — " Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." The following «vidence was then adduced : Andrew Robinson, Publican, Cambridge (examined by Mr Whitaker) deposed, I am hero to defend this oaie, and Mr Walkar is not. Haro the honor of plaintiff's acquaintance. Did not in 1873, gire plamtiif any instructions to prepare plans for additions to nay hotel at Cambridge. Might havo done so ia conjunction with Mr Walker, bat Z don't know. Did authomo Mr Vialou to prepare plans. The •ignature to letter produced is mine (letter read from W Walker and A Robinson to plaintiff relating ta some Unbar required in hotel, and referring to tender writed tor erection of same.) The contents of this letter relate to my. hotel. The plans of Mr Vialou were never carried out. His Honor— Hare you no better witness Mr Whitakor ? — really my sufferings are intent* Mr Whitaker— He is tho defendant your honor, and a rery unwilling witness. Examination continued — I havo been applied to for payment of plaintiff's costs. I referred plaintiff to Mr Walker »nd did not acknowledge the debt. I scratched my head when asked for the money, because there was a lawyer present. I promised to pay £10 to Mr Vialou for his semceß, and you wanted Mr Walker to pny another £10. I would not like to see Mr Vialou working for nothing (the witness here proceeded to make certain abstruse reflections on tho caso ) His Honor — You can roserve your moral remarks for another oocaiion, or publish them in a book if you think fit. * * Oh, that our friend " would write a book " ; the Proprietors of this journal would respectfully intimate to Mr Robinson, that in the erent of his carrying out His Honor's suggestion, they arc prepared "to execute all orders for general punting with promtitude and despatoh and at Auckland prices " vide adrertiseraeut. "In th» press and shortly will be published Andrew Robinson's Provorbial Philosophy," shadvs^qf immortal Tuppor. Eheu ! Eliou !— lioporter. / I R Vialou, Architect, Hamilton, stated, I rooollcct recoiring instructions frons defendants al Cambridge, to prepare plant for an hotel at Cambridge Think this wai in November, 1874, made specifications in December same year. Mr Robinson »tatod that he was to find Mr Walker, his tenant, a portion of the money roquired for making additions to hotel. The defendants were to build it jointly. Plans and specifications were submitted to defendants for their approval. Defendants were perfectly satisfied and inotructed me to call for tenders, I invited tenders accordingly by advertisement in uiual course. No satisfactory tenders were reoeivod in the Waikato, and therefore in aocordanoe with tho lother before the Court, I ad Tort nod in the Auckland papers. The result of seoond adrertising was that the tenders were considered too high. There wore two tenders reeeirod, ©no for about £1,000, and the othor for £1,100. My commission is upon lowest tender £I,OOC. I also got out the quantities for the whole of the building, which nt li per cent is alono £12 108. Some of my papers aooruing during 1873, have been blown away, and I cannot find the receipt for the advertising. The advertising charges are low. Tho item for travelling expenses is fair and reasonable. My claim for commission is at the rate of 2} per cent which is the customary charge of the profession. The Governaaent allow me 2s per mil* for travelling expanse*. Hji Honor — But the Government you must remember havo millions of money. Examination continued — The oharge made for travelling eiponsea is for journeys to Cambridge, before and after my work was done. I made no charge for journeys during the time tke plans were being prepared. By Mr Madden— l believe my solicitor rtceived£lo from Mr Walker about three weeks ago, on account of this claim. I left the matter entirely with Mr Whitaker. Messrs Robinson and Walker made this oontraot jointly. I cannot tell why Mr Walker is not summoned today. There is a very great difference in the cost between the building now erected by defendants and the one drawn by lit. I would

not accept commission on the building erected, which would cost about £550. I do consider the tender obtained by mo a high one. It was Tery difficult to get tenders at that time, wa?es were immensely high. I remember charging Mr Harper five per cent upon value of a building known as the Hamilton Hotel. I consider £25 » Tery low charge for the work I did for defendBy His Honor— l advertised in the Auckland papora and in the Waikato Times fully thrao times. His Honor here went into an elaborate Cilculation a» to the cheap 'Sß plan of advertising and «onoluded by advising Mr Vnlou in future always to pay for his advertisements in advance, whereby he would effect an immense saving. Mr Vialou (bowing.) Thank you for the hint you" Honor. Tuis ooncluded the case for the plaintiff. , , , . Mr Madden then called for the defence. Andrew .Robinson who deposed. I nevor made any arrangement with Mr Vialou f iv travelling eippniM. I hate erected a building for less than £500 including superintendence. I was not aware that Mr Walker had p*id £10 until I hoard it in evidence to-day. I was askod t:> pay £10 and Mr Walker £lo in full satisfaction of Plaintiffs chim. If Mr Vialou had obtained reasonable te iders I would have gone on with the building. Then* were no carpenters who would work under Mr Vuilou. . William Walker stated, I agreed with Mr Robinion and Mr Vialou regarding sertain additions l« an hotel at Cambridge. I paid Mr Whitaker £10 in full of my liability to Mr Vialou. I understood Mr Eobinson was also to pay £10 to which sum Mr Vialou is entitled- I have always been willing to pay what was fairly due to Mr Vialou. Tns tender was £550 over Mr Vialou s own estimate- Mr Vialou was instructed to .prepare plane for a budding to cost about £500. The tenderer was not one of Mr Vialou's own men. Mr Vialou informed me that only one -tender was sent in. Mr Vialou himself ridiculed ■the high amouot of tender. There was scarcely a carpenter in the Waikato who would work under Mr Vialou. I paid Mr Robinson as rent, 10 per cent for six months upon amou.it •invjitpd by Mr Robinson in addition! to hotel. Hlr Vialou h»d no expenses to pay at the hotel. 'Had a tendor been Riven in under £600 the adrhtioni would have been made, By His Honor— l knew Mr Vialou was not -popular with the local carpenters at the time he was emplojod. I offered to pay my half upon the full percentage of his own pstimate of £500, but not on the extravagant tender received. 'I looked upon £20 as beinf a fair .remuneration altogether. This ooncluded the case. Mr Whitaker explained that acting in accord • ance with instruction from his client, in order to prevent the matter coming into Court, he had accepted £10 from Mr Walkor as his share of the liability, but had not obtained a similar amount from Mr Robinson. Under these circumstances he (Mr Whitakor) did not think n was fair to svldlo Mr Walker with heavy costs, henco tho summons had not been served upon 'that gentleman. Toe Court having been addressed by Counsel. His Honor went carefully through the evidence and *aye jud^mont^agunst Mr Robinson for £16 7« 6d, being balance of commission £15, and <£l 7i6d for advertising. His Honor refused to allow costs und^r District Court scalo. (We are compelled to hold over remainder of 'Yeport'Urdil next issue.)