RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1244, 3 May 1884, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

AS HB ORTON.— Yesterday. (Before H, 0. S. Baddeley, Bsq , 8.M.) CIVIL CASES. Plummer v. Clark.—The following is the conclusion of the evidence in this case heard yesterday William Stuart, sworn, s id he was an experienced farmer. When he went to the farm, 67 acres were in stook and was too wet to stack. This was on the 3rd March. Started on the fallowing day to assist Plummer to cut a portion of the grain that remained. From the sth to the 9th of March the weather was very wet, and it was impossible to cart grain, The crop was very poor, being thin and uneven. The cutting done on the ground was as good as it was possible for any man to do. All the crops out in the district at the same time as Clark’s suffered more or less. Considered Plummer a good workman. —Cross-examined by Mr Purnell; During the time the men were waiting for the grain to dry, they cut a small paddock. Would not swear that he did not siy that Plummer was too much of an old fogey to push on the work. Had a "keg of beer on the ground, but that did not affect the weather. Ohario* Inder had been used to harvest work for the last ten or twelve years. Plummer asked witness to assist him with some stacking, but instead of going himself had sent another man. The first paddock cut (a portion of the 67 acres) was in very good trim. The catting done by Plummer, was done as well as it could be done by any man in Canterbury. Withad bean engaged in harvest work every year for eleven years past, and had no interest in this case. In his (witness’s) opinion, Plummer usad evory precaution ho could to save the grain. Had hunted out stock from Clark’s paddocks white the grain was growing and in stook. , In the first place the ground was very badly prepared, consequently half the seed was lost. Estimated that the crop would go about twelve bushels to the acre if the weather had remained fine. Cross-examined by Mr Parnell : Was a butcher by trade, and was now carrying on the business of a livery stablekeeper. The horses an 1 cattle he had seen trespassing on Clark’s land were stock in Braden’s charge.—This closed the evidence for the defence. Plaintiff, recalled, deposed that he had had several conversations with Mr Inder about this case. In one conversation he told him he wan afraid it would be s case with Plummer that he (Plummer) owed him money, and he feared if the case want against him he would lose what was owing to him.—By Mr Voiding : The first conversation about the case was on

i- aster Sunc ay. —After counsel had ad L dfossed the Bench, judgment iri the first case was given for Lfifi ss, and costs in the second case plaintiff was nonsujtgff with costs.

Joseph Clark v William Smith.—the defendant consented to a judgment of LS2 7s lid and costs. To-Dat. [Before Robt. Alcorn, Esq., J.P.] Djiunkbnness. A man named Grigg was fined 10s and 2s cab hire for drunkenness. John Murphy, alias “ Dublin Jack,” an old acquaintance, was fined 10a or twenty-four hoars’ imprisonment on a similar charge. Michael Shea, who had been arrested on a warrant, pleaded guilty to drankenuess and disorderly conduct at the Chertsey Hotel, also to using obscene language. He was fined L 4 in all or eight daya’ imprisonment.