Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

ASHBURTON.— To-day. (Before H. 0. S. Baddeley Esq, R.M.) Woollen Factory Company v R. Lancaster, claim of L 25, money due on shares. Mr Crisp appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Purnell for defendant. —Stephen E. Poyntz, Secretary of the Company, produced an application for shares from defendant. Certain amounts had been paid on the shares, but Mr Lancaster had stated that the trustees in his bankrupt estate were the proper people to sue for the amount now claimed.—ln cross-ex amination witness said that he had given notice of the calls to both Mr Lancaster and Mr Ferriraan. Had previously sent notices to Messrs Digby and Jameson, but subsequently to Mr Feiriman, having heard that the latter had purchased the estate, t-'ent notices to Mr Ferriraan and Mr Lancaster at about the same time, but had no record of the date Mr Lancaster had paid one call, after the estate was transferred to defendant.—Mr Purnell argued that there was no case to answer, ap4 Mr Orjisp haying replied, his Worship said ha would hear the evidence. —Richard Lancaster deposed that he had been a bankrupt and his qatate was assigned and had recently been retransferred to witness. Had never received any notice from Mr Poyntz in regards to calls sued for. —Cross-examined ; Was under the impression that the crlls had all been paid up to the time of tl>e r.v transference of the estate to witness. Counsel having addressed the Bench, hi? Worship said he would take time to conr aider the -s atter and would give bis de? cision to-morrow.

Quill v. Bland, claim of L 4 4s for service to a maro.—Mr Wildin,; appeared

for defendant. The defence was that there was no stamped or tealed assignment of the book debts of the deceased Allan Hobhs, formerly lessee of the horse, and his Worship said that he would in consequence have to nonsuit the plaintiff, the costs of one witness, who had come from Mount Possession, being allowed. Alford Forest Estate v. Aitken, claim of L2 lOsfor service to a mare.—Mr \\ iiding appeared for plaintiff, and called Mr Herring, of the Company, who said that the amount had not been paid. The defence was that defendant had paid the money to the wrong person, and his Worship gave judgment for the amount claimed, adding that no doubt the money would be refunded.

Leddy v. Denshire, claim of L 7 12s 6J, value of sheep.—Mr Crisp appeared for plaintiff and Mr Wilding for defendant. The following evidence was called:— Catherine Baylisa deposed that she lived at Seafield, near the plaintiff, and on the Show day remembered seeing some sheap coming from the direction of Mr Denshire’s land. They came round by Mr Leddy’s whare, and went into a paddock. The sheep were unattended, and witness saw a dog come up to the flock. The dog afterwards went towards Mr Denshire’s. —Cr >Bs-examined ; Did not sea the dog do anything to the sheep.—James O’Connor, in the employ of plaintiff, remembered seeing some sheep on the 16th November, belonging to Mr Leddy. They had been worried by a dog, and some of them had since died. Saw the defendant’s dog, whuh was a large one, on the 21st November. Told Mr Denshire of what had taken place, and he said he would pay for the sheep which were killed. Had been sent by Mr Leddy to defendant’s three or four times to see about the matter of arbitration.— Cross-examined ; Witness could not say that he had repeated all the conversation that had taken place with jjMr Denshire. Did not see any sheep dead on the 16th, although he went all over the paddock. Witness did not tell Mr Denshire on the 21st that the sheep were just dead. The three sheep found on that day seemed to have been dead some days. Mr Denshire might have said that they had been dead a week, but witness could not remember it.—To the Bench : Had never seen any dogs hue the defendant’s loose in the paddock.—D. Leddy, the plaintiff, said that he went to his farm at Seafield on November 16th, when he saw one of his sheep lying down and it tried to get up, but failed. Examined it and found it tom in the thigh and maggots in the wound. Suspected the injury hafl been caused by a dog, but did not 'krow by whose. Witness mustered his sheep and found four of them had been torn. None

of them were killed, but since that time seven had died. Valued *hem at 5s each. Went to see Mr Denshire and told him that he wanted compensation. Defendant said he would not mind giving him half-a-dozen sheep, even if his dog had not done the injury. Mr Denshire said he would give witness a sheep for every one he had lost. Subsequently it was agreed to leave tho'mattor’to arbitration, defendant nominating Mr Parsons. This was after an interview between the parties in the action and Mrs Hayli?s - Crossexamined : Witness had been offered 9s for his lambs, and considered the “ orphans ” not to be worth more than 4s. The ewes that had been worried were worth ss. Mr Denshire never admitted that his dog had done the damage, but said that if witness proved his case he would give him sheep for sheep. Mr Denshire had parted w th the oog, and since then defendant had told witness that some of his sheep had been worried. If a sheep was badly cut when being sho r n and the flies got into the wounds the animals might die. Was of opinion that the wounds were not caused in that way, as the mark of a dog’s teeth was apparent. —Thomas Simpson, farmer, deposed he knew plaintiff, whose sheep he sheared. The merino ewes were in good condition, but could not swear to their value. The sheep were not cut at all in shearing Mr Wilding submitted that there was no case, and asked for a nonsuit. The plaintiff’had at first suspected another neighbour, but had subsequently fixed on Mr ■enshire, who had acted very fairly in

rhe matter, and had offered to ijive Mr Leddy sheep for sheep if his dog had done the harm. —Mr Crisp having answered, his Worship said he would hear the evidence.—W. B. Denshire said that the dog had often been loose about witness’s farm and with the sheep The dog was three years old. and witness had had it since it was a puppy. Had never known it worry sheep, although it could get at them at any time. Sold the dog recently for the reason that the house was shut up for a time. Witness’s own sheep had been worried since the dog had left the neighborhood. Told Mr Leddy from the beginning that if he could bring th > damage home to witness’s dog, ha would give compensation or submit the question to arbitration.—His Worship said that he could not give damagesjon the evidence before him, and he would therefore nonsuit the plaintiff with costs. Ranger v Martin, claim of L 23 Is. Mr Purnell appeared for plaintiff and Mr Crisp for defendant. A set-off was put in and admitted, and Mr Crisp submitted to judgment for L 22 4s 6d, the amount to be paid in monthly instalments of LlO, the first to be paid four weeks hence. Turner v Abbott, claim of L2O, for cash as per agreement. Mr Branson appeared fo* - plaintiff, and Mr Crisp for defendant. he plaintiff gave evidence that he lent defendant Lls,and it was agreed that witness should receive L 5 commission. Defendant gave an order on Mr Ferriman, who refused to honor it, on account of the work not having been done. —Mr Crisp said that ha was entitled to a non-'uit, as it was in the power of the plaintiff to sue Mr Ferriman. The three parties had agreed to the order, and therefore Mr Ferriman was liable. He quoted authorities in support of his contention. —Mr Branson said that the defendant did not sue upon the order, which was put in simply as collateral evidence of the loan. The acceptance was simply upon a certain contingency, and was not strictly an acceptance.— His Worship gave judgment for the amount claimed, with costs. The Court adjourned.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AG18840118.2.9

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1053, 18 January 1884, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,391

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1053, 18 January 1884, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1053, 18 January 1884, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert