HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990 ~
~ IN THB CNII. DIVISION OF
COUNTY COURT IN AND FOR
SAINT Ll)CIB COUN'TY, FLORIUA
CASB N0. 73-1102-SP-O1
~ 2~~5~
Tuc~ ~ ~ac
Plaintiff )
-v8 - )
MtS. J08L IAMP )
Defendant
~ ~
~
- ~
. ~
O R D B R ~
~
~
Not once, not tWice, but thrice A t the time of trial, the plainCiff ~
t
F
explained that he waa hired to mow ~he defendant's laWn while her son was
on vacation. The edger broke he teatified. He returned, f iniehed the
Weeding a~d edging, and returned the third time to remaW the Augustine t
, ~
Baha ia grass . Tt~e b il l xema ina unpa id .
'Lhe defendant teetified that the services ahould have been once ~
~
that ahe told the plaintiff not to return and finish the edging.
lhere is no doubt in the Court'8 mind that the work Was done. Z'he
defendant had an obligation at the end of the aecond application of labor
to notify the plaintiff again that hia servicea were unWanted. Certainly
these services ~rere not in the nature of thoae green-thumb exercisea of ~
the Court in the nature of a honey-dew deal. It is obvious to the Court ~
;
. that the defendant received professio~al servicea. The Court believea the ~
testimony of all partiea but feels the plaintiff ahould be compeneated for
4
i
his first and Iast trip. It fs, therefore, upQn
CONSIDBRATION, ORDBR~D and ADJUDGED that the plaintiff do have and
recover of and from the defendant the sum of $30 plus the cost of this
i
r
~ action.
; DONE and ORU$RBl) in Chambers in Fort Pierce, Florida, this
f ~
day of January, 1974.
~ ttsii:l::'s:!/r, _
t:: - •~`~•ia "y t^ . . ~
- .\~``,C~ ~ J • ~ ' •
, .
~ • %
- • . ~ •
. . ' -Y
~ ~ 1 , _ • \i ~vl\ ;1 .J V+nsB
_ -
t " - _
i ' . . . _ _ _
' ; ~
_ _ - - = fIlEO ANL RECOR(IE0
; . - ~t. tuCiE ~ouNTr ftA.
- ROCEA ?3~TRAS
~ ~ " - C~ERK GI~ L~I:T COURt
~'•'~t-:,t. <~i`'~
. AECORG VEf..riED.~._
8
z ,1~ t0 12 z3 PH'7~
a ~2~ 2'722.5~
~i9,9~Q
1
i
~ ; . -
-
_
~ ~1 L'~`s,
g I ~
~4~~~ w..~._~
~.~~u _ ' a --^~`7 ~ ~