DISTRICT COURT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 963, 7 June 1883, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

ASHBURTON.— To-day. (Before His Honor Deputy Judge Harvey.) W. H. Rule v. Thomas Holmes and Cornelius Sullivan. Mr Stringer for the plaintiff, and Mr Wilding for the defendant —This was a claim for L2OO damages caused by plaintiffs in not properly carrying out a contract entered into between the parties.—The following evidence was given :—W. H. Rule, farmer, said that in January he made an agreement with defendants. A slight alteration was made in the agreement, which was put into the defendants' copy. The contract was commenced on the 16th January. The 700 acres which was to be cut was in five or six paddocks. After 250 acres were cut the grain was ready for carting, but defendants did not commence carting before they had finished within 120 acres of the whole. Wrote defendants, telling them to begin carting, and also told them verbally. As they did not commence witness put a man named ,

Findlay on to the cwtact;,’ Holmes asked \ why the'man b£en taken on, and if ' Findlay was taken offdefendanls would put onextradtays and nien. Witness withdrew the men, but defendants did not start till two days after with two drays and three mett, 'which were insufficient. Subsequbptlythey put on five men, and when they had finished the cutting contract they put on four drays with ten men.’ Witness complained to defendant(Holmos) ‘ bojncerning the delay ard the manner in which the grain was sL -ked. Was not the proper thing, according to witness’s - " experience, to leave the carting till the catting was completed. Some of the corn was ready for carting ten minutes after it was cut, but witness al owed defendants ten days. In the 207 acre paddock the corn remained on the ground in the stook five weeks and three days. There was nothing to prevent the carting if there had been sufficient plant. Spoke to defendants about the plant before the contract, and they said they had sufficient. They had a machine binder which did not do the work properly—the corn improperly bound was scattered over the ground. The greater part of the stacks were very badly made, and damage was done to the corn in consequence. Witness had sold the grain to Roberts, Paxton, and Co. at 3s 9d per bushel, to the amount of 5,000 oushela. They rejected 3,604 bushels, which witness estimated cost him a loss of 9d per bushel. The falling off was due to the grain lying on the ground. Could not get rid of the wheat at a higher price than 3a. There were some showers dudng the stacking, but not enough rain to do the injury caused to the grain. The sheaves should not have been stacked when wet. Mr Stringer asked leave to put in a list of particulars of the loss allege)! to have been sustained, bus Mr Wilding objected.—The witness was then examined on each particular item of the loss. The loss was due to the falling off in the price of wheat, that plaintiff had to cart the grain to a place where it could be properly dried, and the extra expense incurred in stacking. As compared with other men who had contracts with plaintiff, the defendants were very slow in carrying out their work. Witness had shown Messrs Winter and Allen the way the contract was being carried out—Cross-examined : Witness did not ask defendants what plant they had nor how many men they were going to employ. The first work they did was the half of a 275-acre paddock. The grain was fit to cart three days after it was cut. The defendants then went into the 207-acre paddock where the grain was on the gr en side,” which was well fit to stack ten days after it was cut. Did not urge the defendants to get on with the cutting and to leave the carting. They said they were working all night, but witness could not say of his own knowledge. Did not complain of Sullivan’s machine, but he objected to the string binder, which missed tying. Knew* that the defendants did not tie up the loose sheaves. Holmes never asked to be allowed to cart the first paddock immediately after' it was 1 cut. The land was not deeply ploughed, and some of it was rolled. . The cattle did not break ini* the paddock to witness’s knowledge, but he admitted that the sheep broke. The wheat was in stook and the sheep eat the corn. Holmes did not go on with the carting immediately after Findlay, was taken off with two drays, but believed that Holmes and a' man with one dray went on the same day. Some of the grain was not stacked at all; The defendants had acted cont ary to witness’s directions. Did not stop the machine, because it was then too late. Large numbers of bags of grain were lying in the paddock after the threshing, but they were covered with straw. O’Loghlen did not, to witness’s knowledge, find grain hags saturated with wet. The railway department had Jiveu O’Loghlen a receipt for damp bags sent to the station. Could not distinguish the difference between Holme’s wheat and Giles’s wheat except one paddock. Would not swear that soma of Giles’s wheat was not rejected. If it was rejected it forms part of the wheat included in the present claim. The stacks near witness’s house were built by Giles and Co. They were not particularly good stacks nor particularly bad. Remembered defendant’s coming up for their money, and they had a difference about a charge for restocking. Told defendants that he didn’t consider their contract was well carried out. Witness made a claim of L 4 for restooking, which defendants refused to allow. The defendants then brought a claim against witness, and the L 4 was divided between the parties. Reexamined by Mr Stringer: At the time when he would have made a settlement with defendants he did not know any particular damage had been done to the grain. lUd not discover the damage till the grain was threshed. When the sheep broke in the defendants had commenced carting. The sheep, judging by the tracks, had only gone over a quarter of the paddock. The threshing machine was ' always ready up to the carting.. Knew of no grain of Giles’s being rejected.—By the Bench : At the time the witness was sued by defendants, he knew the damage had been done to the grain;—H. T. Winter, farmer, deposed that his farm adjoined that of plaintiff. Was at Mr Rule’s in February last, and saw operations being carried on by Holmes and Co. Did not think that the work was progressing satisfactorily, many of the stooks lying on the ground and unbound. The stacks witness' saw were not well built, small and not well-topped. A fortnight or three weeks would be a reasonable time for grain to remain in stook if cut on the green side. Five weeks and three days would be too long at any time. Up to the middle of February there was ordinary harvesting weather. If wheat remained too long in the stook it would sprout. Grain if properly stacked, although not thatched, would withstand any ordinary wet weather. > Witness saw Holmes’s men on the ground, but they appeared to be coursing, or something of that kind ; at any rate they were not working.—Cross-examined by Mr Wilding: Had had wheat of his own out for more than .five weeks and three days. The season was a bad one, and nearly ■ every farmer in Canterbury suffered more or less. It was not necessary'To thatch grain stacks unless they were not to be threshed till winter. Could not distinguish between the work of defendants and other contractors on the farm. —W. A. Allen, stock-dealer, said he was at Mr Rale’s farm in company with Mr Winter. Saw harvesting operations going on. A good deal of the grain in stook was lying on the ground. Did not see the stacks'.— Cross-examined by Mr Wilding; Did not know, who was- the contractor -for That portion of the land he saw.—Nelson Eden deposed that he was the proprietor ot a threshing machine at Mr Rule’s. Witness was with the machine which Holmes and Co. were at work. Heard a conversation between plaintiff and defendants concerning the threshing from the stook. Mr Rule told them to take those that were standing, and leave those on the ground to dry. The defendants did not carry out the instructions. Remembered onp stack which ; was “ grown ” in, the: centre, . although the top and sides were dry. All the ; . stacks of Holmes and Co. were badly built, i Witness objected one morning to defen- j dants’ carting on to the machine, as the ; grain was damp from dew. Considered a 1 week or ten days long enough for grain to remain in stook.—Cross-examined by ,Mr Wilding: After leaving, plaintiff went to thresh for M* Hampton. Thought that Mr Rule’s grain was , “equally the best” of the two. Went afterwards to Kelly’s, whose wheat was ; more damaged than either Rule's or Hampton’s. Threshed for Mr Dowling,

whose grain was in worse condition j. than plaintiff’s. Messrs Sutton and* Jones’s grain, which witness threshed, was worse than Mr Buie’s. He would say that plaintiff’s grain was the best he had threshed that season. Told Holmes the .wheat was not fit to thresh, although ho ’(witness) went on threshing it At that Time there were stacks ready to thre-h. There might have been thirty stacks a head of the machine.—Re-examined by. Mr ' Stringer : Was a contract ’ thresher and wished to get through as quickly as [possible. —W. Kennedy, contractor, said that he was engage! stacking and carting for Mr Rule.' Knew defendants and had seen their work. , Saw ti.e stooks in the 207-acre paddock, and soma of the wheat that was urown. This was. about the 22nd February, previous to its being stacked. Saw traces of sheep having been in the paddock, but they did not extend far.—Cross-examined by Mr Wilding: When witness saw the sto fcs on the ground it was some time after the sheep had been there. —Joseph Oapstick, laborer, gave evidence to the effect that he assisted to re-stook the grain. He re- • membered the sheep getting into the paddock and eating the heads of the stocks. The sheep • went over about ’ twenty chains across/ the paddocks.—Cross-examined : Did hot remember saying anything to Holmes the contract.—Andrew Burk, co trao or, said he was at work in the 507-acre Pad* dock. The defendants cut the whole bf that, and witness assisted in the carting of part of it. Commenced work on Feb. 22, when the grain was on the ground, and witness thought it had been * there _ five or six weeks. At that time some of ' it had sprouted, but not a great deal. The sheep came in the paddook after the carting commenced. Cross-examined: There were some heavy showers in February, which would delay the stacking. Did not see any sprouted wheat in any other but the 207 acre paddock.—This concluded the case for the plaintiff. . Me Wilding then cdled the following witr t nesses :—Thomas Holmes said he had. had , 24 years farming experience in Canterbury. When he made a contract with plaintiff he told him what plant' .he intended to use. No objection was raised by Mr Rule to the plant to be used. Kept the machine going continually night and day when possible, working with double shifts , of men and horses. First 'cut 147' acres ' of self sown, which was perfectly'ripS. !!C When the first paddock was finished plain- ' tiff told witness that he did wish ’ ham to’"' go on stacking- Mr Rule said that it would not be ready forafortnight. Witness was anxious and ready to go on with the carting and stacking. Then witness went on with the 207-acre paddock, which was not fit. Nothing was said about going to cart the first paddook in the meantime. Plaintiff was in the habit of paying a visit to the fields, and never made any complaint as to witness's work, nor of the number of men employed. The first paddock carted was the ' “ self-sown ” land.

[Left sitting.] '