RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1243, 2 May 1884, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

AS BB ORTON. — To-dat. (Before H, 0. S. Baddeley, Esq , R M) Clark v, Plummer, claim of LIOO, for damages sustained through harvest work being improperly dona. —Mr Purnoll appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Wilding for the defendant. This case was partially heard on Saturday last, an! Mr Wilding now called evidence for the defence.—J. Seatl said that Clark had asked him to cut his crop, but witness was unable to do so, and recommended Plummer as a suitable man for the work. Subsequently Clark, Plummer and the witness met at iho Rakaia Post-i fSce and had a con . ersation about the work, during which Plummer, said that he would not be bound by any agreement, as he had a crop of his own to cut. Could not say if a contract was then made. Clark’s crop was cut on the green side, and with m derate weather it would require to remain in stock for eight or ten days before it would be fit to stack. Clark’s crop was full of thistles and other weeds which he'd the moisture, delayed stacking and caused the grain to sprout. —E. W. Osborne said he had been in Kakaia district seven years, had not known a worse season than the last. All late grain was damaged Grain cut on green side should remain in stock a fortnight if Intended to be threshed soon. Crop cut this season on 12th February would not be a late one.—S. Saunders said the sample of Clark’s grain produced was not cut green. The crop had evidently been patchy, and the small grains should have been removed by the threshing machine. Thought throe weoks fine weather ample time to cut, stock, and stack 130 acres o c wheat.—David Thomas agreed with the previous witness. —Thomas Plumrasr, the defendant, corroborated Searla evidence in respect to the conversation with Clark. Told Clark would not bo bound by agreement, but do bust he could. Clark raised no objection to -witness harvesting his own crop. Started work fur p!ai ailf on 13th February, had two stookers following machine. Finished cutting 67 acres on'lO h February and no more being ripe moved to his own c*oo without any objection from Clark. Saw Clark’s crop on , •£3rd and 26th February, bur, the standing portion was st|ll ujiripe and that in stook unfit to stack. On 2nd March Clark told witness he had put Brady on to cut crop,

but said he might be stopped, and did not complain of neglect. Gave Brndy an order on Clark for payment for work done. Started to cut again on 4th March but could not stack on account of rain, and returned to my own p’ace on 9th and remained to 16th March. On 16th March was engaged re-stooking Clark’s crop, and on the 21st plaintiff ordered it to be stacked, and witnesa.put on 6 drays and did not leave the work until completed. [Laft sitting ]