RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1249, 9 May 1884, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

ASHBURTON.—To-»at. (Pefore H. C. S. Baddeley, Esq , R.M.) CIVIL CASES In the following cases judgment went by default Morris v. Hicks, L 46 14s 4d and costa ; Shearman v. Husband, L 36 14s 5 i and coats Meclean r. Fried ladder Bos.—ln this case the plaintiff claimed L 64 17s 3d, for threshing a crop of wheat the property of Dooley and Coulter, alleging that payment h id been guaranteed by Friediander Bros.—Mr Wilding appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Purnell for the defendants.—Robert Meclean, the plaintiff, said that in consequence of the advertisement produced he saw William Saunders ' in respect to threshing the 2000 acres referred to. Saunders referred him to Friediander Bros., and he subsequently arranged to do the threshing at Ll 6 IQs per 1,000 bushels, Friediander Bros, guaranteeing payment. Started to thrash on 21st February, but had to leave off on account of the condition of the grain, but recommenced later and continued to thresh until ,20th March. Saunders directed him to start threshing a particular lot of grain, the subject of this action. It was stacked at Dundas, and there was nothing to indicate that it was not part of the crop contracted for. While threshing this grain Hugo Friediander came to the machine and asked him to push on with the work and he (Friediander) would see him paid. —-Cross-examined by Mr Purnell: Accepted contract from Friediander Bros. The guarantee of payment was signed after contract was made. Did not send account for thres’-’ng to Satinders. Did not understand when the guarantee was signed that Dooley and Coulter's grain was to be threshed. Waste thresh 2.000 acres for W.T ’ Sadnde». w * w B«Sw parato accounts to Friediander Bros for Saunders’ and Dooley and Coulter’s threshing, because he found after threshing that there were different proprietors! Have never claimed the amount of accounts from anyone but Friediander Bros. —To the Bench : W. Saunders directed me to thres'i this grain. Had doeonvenation at that time about payment.E. Mulford, bagman to Maclean’s machine, said that fae was present'at a conversation, when H. Friediander promised to see Maclean . p dd. —W. . Saunders said that at his request Friediander Bros, advertised for tenders for threshing 2.000 acres crop on bis account. 'I he 2.000 acres ware not all ab Dundas—there was about 1,450 acres of; his own there, and about 350 acres oftanants’. Was interested in crops elsewhere, Hand gave gave Meclean to understand, that could procure about the 2,000 acres-for him. Edward Hardwick was-hit shepherd. Did not authorise him to sign any papers on his account.—Cross-examined by Mr Purnell ; Had not previously seen■ the guarantee to Meclean produced, but was aware ot its existence. Had never given Meclean the certificate of work perforatedprovided for by the guarantee, or autho* | rised anyone to give it on his account. 1 Dooley and Coulter’s threshing .was not 1 part of the contract with Maclean. Told Meclean that he required about L 175 for 1 rent, and L 25 seed wheat out of the crop, and if there was 1,609 bushels iu the let he (witness) would see the threshing paid for. Plaintiff examined the stack, and , subsequently told witness that ha would risk the threshing. Never heard H. Friediander promise to pay far the thresh- * iag. Was present at the conversation In which the promise was alleged to have 7 been made —This closed 'the plaintiff’s case, and Mr Purnell asked for a non-suit ; on the ground that the certificate which > the guarantee provided should be .given ' by Saunders before Friediander Bros. - made payment had not been obtained. > The plaintiff was non-suited with costs. Gerard v. Graham. —The plaintiff sued for L 25 damages claimed by the de- > fendmt for trespass of 2,000 sheep and paid to the Ashburton poundkeeper under protest.—Mr Purnell appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Wilding for defendant. —T.

W. Price, keeper of the Ashburton pound, said that Graham sent for him on the evening of April 19, and he met him at the Somerset Hotel about half-past seven. Graham said that there were a lot of sheep on his farm, and as they had been put in there without his consent ha wished them impounded. The witness ' proceeded to Graham’s farm and was subsequently joined by plainiff. Together drove the sheep to the pound, reaching Ashburton at about 1 o’clock on Sunday morning. Grabam directed witness to charge 3d per head for damages. Entered particulars in the pound book now pro* , duced. The next morning McLeod - came to the pound and was joined later on by Graham. McLeod urged the plain- : tiff to accept a 'mailer amount as damages, but he declined to do so, and eventually the full amount was paid under protest. — Cross-examined by Mr Wilding; The vdamages were the ordinary ones charged. - The paddock was well fenced, and a few - days previou ly he bad noticed good feed on it. —Re-examined by Mr Purnell:.The The Impounding Ordinance'produced at the request of McLeod was a leafshort. Was not aware that 1$ the rpaximuin charge which could be made under the statute.—Murray McLeod, shepherd to plaintiff, said that ho was travelling from Double Hill station to Ashburton, with, a mob oc 2,000 sheep. He reached Winchmore road about 2 o’clock on Saturday: ' afternoon and inquired for a paddock in' which he could camp the sheep. Heard that Graham took in sheep in that way, and put the sheep on his farm. There was no one about the property, but he left a note in the window for Mr Graham explaining the circumstances and canife to Ashburton. In Ashburton he made further enquiries for Graham. About 10 o’clock met Graham at the Ashburton Hotel, but did not known him. Graham first spoke to witness, asking if he was the man that put the sheep in Graham’s paddock. Witness replied in the affirmative, and Graham asxed how he was going to pay for grazing the sheep. Replied that he would settle that in the ordinary way; Graham said his name was Miller, and - that he was a neighbor of Graham’s, and recommended leaving the sheep in the paddock until the day before the aale. Witness said he would not do so as 'he had not seen the owner and requested the man who represented himself as a neighbor of Graham to inform him what the witness had done. Graham repliei, “Oh, you’re right enough ; you seem a decent sort of fellow.” He then shook hands with the witness and left. Duncan McQuane and two strangers were present at the interview with Griham. Went up to sea sheep the following morning, and found that they had been removed with the exception of 15, which remained in the paddock ('raced them to the pound, finding several stray sheep from the mob on the road side. Met Graham at pound, and asked him to reduce cla ; m for damages. He refused to do so, saying squatters did what they liked with cockatoos, but be had one now, and would not knock off a penny. The sheep could do no damage in Graham’s paddock ; they would rather benefit it. The usual charge for paddocking sheep wan Is per hundred for a night. Cress-examined by Mr Wilding ; By appearance Graham was an Irishman, wit-, ness a Scotchman, bat they understood one anothers language.—D. McQuane corroborated the evidence of the previou wit ess. —E. Coffey sa d that McLeod had asked him to tell Graham about the sheep. He had seen Graham and done so.—Jas. Scott, had assisted McLaod in driving sheep, and corroborated part of the pruv.nos evidence. This gland V . the puio .11' > uud Mr Par* , ■ noil pointed out that the

charge for damages under i he. ‘ t«• ute was L2, while the dehnoant ■ lis-.d re eived L 25 After argument, Mr Wilding said that his attention had only ju«t been tamed to the point raised by the other side, and he would not call any witnesses -—Judgment for plaintiff for L 23 and costs. _________