DISTRICT COURT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 964, 8 June 1883, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

ASHBURTON. —Yesterday.

(Before His Honor Deputy Judge Harvey.)

W. H. Rule v. T. Holmes and C. O’Sullivan. —The following evidence was taken after we went to press last evening ; —T. Holmes, continuing his examination in chief, said he asked plaintiff when he saw some carts in the paddock, why be

had not told him'.wit.seas) of his intention. Mr Rule said he could do as he

liked. Subsequently the drays were removed, and witness commenced to cart the same day. Put on two drays and three men and himself with ahoy. The two machines cut about twenty acres a day each. The plaintiff had congratulated witness on the manner in which the stocks were built, saying that they stood better than those of other men. _ Riddell was present when this conversation took place. Considered Riddell, to whom witness had sub-let the stocking, a good] worker, and made good time. Mr Rule had put on men of his own, and witness had allowed for that. Witness built one 1 half of the stacks and O’Loghlen built the remainder. Plaintiff had never once complained of the stacking, nor did he | direct them to be built differently. It I would have been profitable t defendants if they had been allowed to go on catting, as the other paddock was too green to cut. The original contract did not include carting, but this was done by Mr. Rule’s orders. Had a conversation with the engine-driver and plaintiff as to whether the grain was fit, and plaintiff said it was quite ready. In the presence •f the other defendant plaintiff said that he would not expect them to put up stocks again after they were once erected in good style. Saw the sheep in the paddock before the cutting was commenced, and cattle also came in. Witness received certain money on account, and afterwards went to plaintiffs office to obtain a final statement. Mr Rule had a contra account, ene item of which (L4l6s) witness would not allow. Witness gave evidence before Judge Ward of the variance made in the contract. Plaintiff did not complain at that time of the manner the work had been done. Saw bags of wheat lying in the paddock, exposed to the weather, and uncovered. The rain prevented the stacking being carried on at certain times and carting the bags of grain to the station. —Cross-examined by Mr Stringer : Did not cart any of the 207 acre paddock. Thought that the grain was left on the ground about five weeks. Hover asked plaintiff to allow the grain to be carted. Did not build the two small stacks by the desire of plaintiff. It was two days after Findlay’s men were there that witness put on two drays and ten men on the paddock. —Cornelius O’Sullivan deposed that he had five years’ experience of harvesting work. Was engaged in a contract for plaintiff with the previous witness. The work was done satisfactorily, and Mr Rule had expressed himself to th it effect. The witness gave evidence of the terms of the contract, corroborative of what had been said by the Mother defendant. —John Riddell said that he was engaged stooking for the defendant’s on Mr Rule’s land. He considered the work was well done. Tiie sheaves that were not tied by the machine had been tied by witness, except when prevented by the nor’-wes-ter. Only saw'two sheaves whiOh were damp and grown, and he threw them aside as not being fit for the s'ack. Mr Rule put them back to the stook.—Crossexamined : Put loose corn into the centre of the stook, but Mr Rule objected, and it was not done again. —Michael O’Loghlen said he wa* engaged on the contract by the defendants, cutting and stacking. The work was done well, there being no scamping. The stacks were properly raked down and headed, to the plaintiff’s satisfaction. The grain witness carted to machine was dampish, but plaintiff, who was present, did not object. Carted some of the grain to the Chertsey railway station, from the paddocks. The bags were uncovered and were wet. There were two day’s rain previous to this, and he got a receipt from the railway for several wet bags.—- ross-examined : Could not say how many of the bags were wet. There were over fifty bags uncovered in tho paddock. The receipt said the bags were wet, not damp.—Henry Dunn said .he was engaged in the contract and considered the work done was good, considering that threshing was to take ' place soon.—Cross-examined : Never heard Mr Rule object nor did he see grain improperly dried put into the stacks. — Daniel Buckley said he was engaged as a band cutter at the machine on Mr Rule’s .land, and every sheaf went through witness’s band. The grain was in a very good state, although some was damp, but not more than would result from rain falling while threshing was going on. Of all the Essex wheat threshed during the season plaintiff’s was the best. He considered the stacks were well built. The grain from the stook was in a fairly fit state for threshing. The plaintiff objected one morning on the ground that the grain was damp. The rain that fell on the bag? while they were lying in the paddock was sufficient to damage the grain. On one occasion witness could not get sufficient dry bags to make aload.—Cross-examined: Only in one instance did witness find the interior sheaves were damp. James Coffey, Edward Mcllwraith, and John Crocker gave evidence as to the quality of the work done on plaintiff’s farm, which they considered good.—W. R. Dunn, machinist, gave expert evidence to the effect of tho machines working above the average. Thought the grain he saw threshed from the stook was reasonably fit.—Cross-examined- Had not agreed with Mr Rule that the grain was too damp.—Henry Beckett, farmer, said that ifjgrain were threshed in the rain it would be damaged. It was the custom in Ashburton to sample every bag. The selling price of wheat was at 4s 2d during February and the beginning of March.—This concluded the defendant’s case. —Mr Wilding and Mr Stringer having addressed the Bench, His Honor after summing up gave judgment for the defendants with coats.

Tho Court adjourned at 6.20 p.m. until 11 a.m. the following day. To-day. IN' BANKRUPTCY. In re F. Pavitt, Mr Purnell applied for an or.der for costs. —Granted. In re F. W. Quaife, Mr Purnell applied for an order of discharge.—Granted. l;i re Neil Duff, the debtor appeared in person applying for an order of discharge. The trustee having given evidence the order was granted. In re Gerald D. Branson, Mr E. G. Crisp applied for an order for costs.— Granted. In re R. Morgan, Mr Wilding applied for an order of discharge. —Granted. On the motion of Mr Wilding, William Smith was appointed a certificated accountant in bankruptcy. PROBATE IN ADMINISTRATION. Letters of administration were granted in tho matter of R. Olsen and J. W. Parker, Mr Crisp appearing in both cases. APPEAL CASE. Taylor v. Stephens.—This was an appeal against a decision of the R.M. Court, compelling the defendant to contribute towards the support of an illegitimate child.—Mr Wilding appeared on the part of the appellant, and Mr Purnell for the respondent.—Mr Purnell submitted that this Court had no jurisdiction, and in support of this quoted the proclamation in the Gazette which appointed the Court for civil cases only. He argued that this was distinctly a criminal case, as the conviction was made under the Justices of the Peace - v ot, which was essentially a criminal Act. Another objection was raised by the counsel on the ground that the appellant had not given the notice required by law.—Mr Wilding replied, and after argument his Honor admitted the point of insufficient notice, which would simply implj that the hearing of the case be adjourned.—Mr Purnell said that as his Honor took that view of the question

he wolua hot preashia'wbjection.—Ooun sel for .the rebpblfitont totalled the cir cumsthdicea of 1 thefoase, 'Which have - »!• readj^ 1 ' fcsen pbblisned. The following evidence was then taken Ada Taylor deposed that; she had known John Stephens since February, 1882. ITe had paid witness, attentions. Witness remembered May 28th, 1882, on the evening of which day she went to church with Mrs Miller, witness’s sister. Met Jqhn Stephens ott Coming out of church, and went for a walk toward . the, new cemetery. Mrs Miller only accompanied them as far as Tasker’s > Bhop, , witness and Stephens went on past the cemetery andj into an unfrequented road, not very far from the North Beit. Witness then went; on to describe what took place in the| road, from which it appeared from witness's statement chat the appellant had taken advantage of her. Stephens afterwards left her, buc subsequently returned,, and the two went to the house of Mrs: Miller, It was half-past nine when wit-| ness reached home, an hour half after leaving church. On February 17th,; 1883, witness gave birth to a child ofj which appellant was the father. Stephens ceased to pay her attention since the night of May 28th, 1882. Subsequently ne came to Mrs Miller’s at the request of witness’s brother-in law, when there were present witness’s father and mother and Mr and Mrs Miller. Stephens, when accused of being the father of the child, denied the imputation, and had since got married.—Cross-examined : Witness was over seventeen at the present time. In May, 1882, was out of occupation, and. staying at her sister’s house. Had been in service before and also since the birth of the child. There were two, not very large, rooms in her sister’s house. Had known Stephens nearly three months prior to the walk referred to. Had not been in 'the-’habit'of 'Walking' out 'at nig'Kt with other young men. Knew a man named Henry Barker, but could nqt say whether he was intimate at witness’s sister’s house. Barker had never stayed a night in the house, whjle . witness was there. Admitted, in answer to a subsequent question, that he had stopped one night, a long while before the 28th of , was never living there, and witness had never walked out with him at all hours of the night, [Mr Wilding here called for William Parkin, but Mr Purnell objected to the calling of evidence that had not been given in the : lower Court. The objection was, after argument, disallowed.] Didnot know WilliamParkin(produqed), and had not seen hinj when witness was with Barker. Had been but alone with Barker at night only on one occasion when she walked up,the stpeet ;with him. Did not know if she had told the Magistrate that she had never been alone with Barker at night. Had had “a lark now and again” with Miller, witness’s brother-in-law. He had never kissed her since she had grown up. Had always said that the occurrence referred to was on the 28th May, and not on the night of Compton’s funeral. Did not assert that it was the latter date to appellant on the occasion of his visit to Mrs Miller’s house. > Had made an appointment with Stephens on the 28th May, to meet him after church. Could not say how many times she had been walking with Stephens, but it was frequently, and he had attempted familiarity with witness twice previous to the specified Sunday. : She went voluntarily with Stephens after chu.ch. He had never offered marriage to witness, neither had she nor nehsister'irivited him to the house. The witness was then at considerable length as to what took' place on the'2Bth May, In response to a question from Mr Wilding, witness said she did not know the handwriting on an envelope produced, but she subsequently 7 admitted that its was a friend’s. A letter produced witness said was written by the same person. The letter stated that the witness expected to be confined at the end of last year, and it was put in as evidence.—Mr Purnell re-examined the witness as to the direction she and appellant took on the the evening of the 28th May. On the only occasion of her walking alone, with Barker, it was abbut half-past eight' o’clock.—Mrs Miller was called at this juncture, but she failed to put in an appearance. Mr Miller was present, and stated that his wife was ill and unable to come.,. As no medical certificate was forthcoming, his Honor adjourned the Court for half an hour to enable Mnj Miller to be brought. [Left Sitting.]