From Western Post, 5 January, 1861 Thursday January 3, 1861 Jury Cases James MILLER v. Stephen TUCKER JAMES for plaintiff. Templeton for defendant. This was an action for the sum of £200, being a balance of £500 due for work done and materials found. James MILLER (whose examination lasted several hours) said that early in 1859, when working at the bank at Windeyer he entered into an agreement with TUCKER to fit up a store, shingle and weatherboard a woolshed, finish a kitchen, and perform sundry other carpenters' work on defendant's premises at Long Creek. During the whole period of his engagement he was constantly called away from work to attend to other matters. He buried a lady, made several tables, window sashes, a meat safe, &c. Part of the amount claimed was for the use of his team. After proving the quantity of work done, which he swore was done at a reasonable rate and in a workmanlike manner, MILLER underwent a long examination respecting TUCKER's account against him for goods supplied and money advanced, many of the articles he disputed; one of which was a "hollow"; upon the Judge inquiring the kind of article and its use, Mr. JUPP facetiously explained from the body of the Court that it meant a "shout", wh! ich explanation equally perplexed his Honor. W. CASTLES, brother-in-law to MILLER, swore to the completion of the work as per agreement. Mary J MILLER said she had the management of all her husband's money matters. She wrote out orders for all sums that were drawn; the reason she did this was on account of MILLER getting so often on the "spree", and to put a stop to it she requested that no more money should be advanced without her written order. Her husband could obtain goods from the store without an order or her knowledge. She kept a book in which everything was entered. This witness likewise went through the store account objecting to a number of articles and likewise to the price charged. For the defence, - Mr. TEBBUTT, architect, &c., said that at the request of Mr. TUCKER he examined the work MILLER had done, which was very defective. He considered that the building was not put up in accordance with the contract, and that it would fall done if something was not done to it. He did not hesitate to say that it was the worst finished building he had seen, and that it would cost about £50 to make it safe. Fred BENNETT, a carpenter, swore to the value of the work. He was requested by M.r TUCKER to examine the fittings up. MILLER at first objected, but at last consented, and assisted to measure it. His conclusion was that £36 12s. was a fair price for the work not contracted for, which was £38 less than the amount charged by MILLER. He considered himself a good workman, and would have been glad to have done the work for the sum he had valued it at. Mr. S TUCKER gave evidence concerning the contract entered into between himself and MILLER, which he considered MILLER had not completed. The walls of the woolshed had separated. Many of the slabs did not reach the wall plate, and it would cost £60 to complete the work. Mr. TUCKER swore to the reasonable of the price charged for the goods disputed, &c. James BURNES, the storekeeper, and Mrs TUCKER both gave evidence in a most businesslike manner at to the delivery of the goods. His Honor then took great care in summing up; after explaining the law and lucidly pointing out the different points which required attention, the jury retired. A second case between the same parties was then called on, and proceeded some length, when the jury in the former case, who had been locked up four hours, sent word that they could not understand the accounts. It was eventually agreed that both cases should be put into Alderman M'CANLEY's hands for arbitration; the award to be given in six weeks. The Court adjourned to this day. ***END*** Annette Piper (Please note: Every effort has been made to transcribe the above correctly, however errors may have inadvertently been made. Spelling is at is appears in original.)