RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1279, 13 June 1884, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

AS HB URTON. -To-day.

'Before H 0. S. Baddeley, Esq., R.M.) CIVIL CASES. Hayaa v Simpson, claim Ll la Sd, Mr Caygill for plaintiff, Mr Branson for defendant. —Mr Branson said tljat hi* client had not received proper consideration from the other side, and he felt quite justified in taking advantage of a technical objection. He pointed out that the summons was signed “B, Alcorn, while it should have been signed by Mr Alcorn as a Justice of the Peace, acting in and for the colony of New Zealand. After argument Mr Branson consented to the summons being amended, provided his client was allowed two weeks to make payment.. This was agreed to by the other side and judgment given for amount claimed. Reid and Gray v Brick, claim L 7 12s 6d.—Judgment by default for tbe amount claimed with costs. Lancaster v John Blackburn, claim I>7 13s- 5d for goods supplied to the defendant’s camp,—D. Amos, clerk to the plaintiff, deposed that ttta goods had been supplied to John Blaekborn’s order-, at Dromore.—E. H. Butler said that he had taken the order from John Blackburn end . delivered the goods.—The defendant said that the goods had been supplied to his brother who had become a bankrupt.— Judgment for the amount claimed with costs. Spencer v. Lemon,' claim of Lll IC*, the balance due upon a promissory note for L 36 15s, given by the defendant to : the plaintiff in December, 1881.—Mr ; Wilding for plaintiff; Mr Crisp for the ; defendant.—The liability under the bill was admitted, but there was, a set-off-* lodged by the defendant, in respe ot to which the following evidence was taken:— James Lemon had transactions with Spencer about three years ago. He had given the promissory note subject of this-- - action for purchase of a wagon. He had since dona work for Spencer. J. T. Ward had not been engaged by the witness to arbitrate between the plaintiff • and himself. About two years ago he paid Spencer L 25 on account ef the proi missory note, and he thought the balance had been settled by work done. Ttu plaintiff had not asked for the balance : until about three months ago when witness declined te hack a bill for him.— ; Cross-examined by Mr Wilding: The L2j was paid to Spencer by Gerard, for whon the parties had jointly done soma wool carting. Witness thought that his shan of the (carting should.have amounted t> ■ about L 36, but the accounts were kept—entirely with Spencer. Tbe L 6 charge! . \ in the set off was for carting timber tc Cooper Bros, at the Hinas Gorge by‘ Spencer’s order. Spencer engaged to paf , witness for wool carting at Gerard’s.—£ ’ Spencer, tbe defendant, said that he had . ; never employed Lemon to cart timber te i Cooper Bros. The witness had never received payment for the work. The. pro* missory note was taken in settlement of. i accounts between the parties at that date, - The statement of accounts had been prepared by J. Y. Waid, for which the witness and defendant each paid Ll Is. 30 a a hundred was tha usual charge for carting posts and rails from Alford Forest. -In his set off the defendant had charged 50s.—Cross-examined by Mr Crisp: The wagon sold to Lemon was in - i good order, and would have been worth L6O if new. Had taken a load of timberup to the Hinds for Cooper Bios., bat had never received payment. He might have helped Lemon to load, the timber ho took to Cooper Bros. The usual charge for carting at that time was Is par ton a ■ mile. The price was less now. He jhad ; i carted some posts and rails from Alford Forest at 27s per hundred.—Judgment for L 5 11s with costs. O’Grady v Eden, claim Lloo.—Mr Wilding for the plaintiff, Mr Crisp for the defendant. —Mr Wilding explained that the claim was. for damage sustained by the plaintiff through the negligent threshing of the defendant. The amount of tbe damage was estimated at Ll2O, but the claim bad oeen reduced to meet the juris- ; diction of-the Court, —O’Brien had been engaged by O’Grady to move bags from the machines. Had noticed a large amount of grain remaining in the straw after threshing, and called the attention of O’Qrady to the fact. Subsequentlyheard O’Grady ask Eden to look at the ■■ straw, and at the same time say that the thrashing was so lad ha would not pay for it. Eden replied that he supposed they had better knock off. The witne® had never previously seen so much grain remaining in the straw after threshing. —Cros3-examined by Mr Crisp : Was a general farm laborer, and had had soma experience wiih threshing machines O’Grady’s stacks appeared to be properly built, but a part of the outside sheavsi was damp. Mora than half the stacks were threshed when witness called O’Grady’s attention to the grain remain- < ing in' the straw. Could not say how much grain was lost in this way. —Reexamined by Mr Wilding : O’Grady set the wet sheaves aside ; they were noi threshed.—E. H. Butler had been farming all his life until recently. He had owned a threshing machine. O’Brien called his attention to the condition of the straw, and he noticed a large quantity of grain remaining in it. The atrav looked as if it had been threshed with t flail, and there was a large quantity o: wheat remaining on and under the elevator. He attributed this to the shakers of the machine not working quick enough to clean the straw. After O’Grady hac complained witness noticed an improve* ment in the threshing. About fourteen stacks had been threshed previous to this. The damp portions of the stacks were removed and put in stocks. Tbe wasted ■ grain could not hare come from that source. The stacks were all of much the same sire. O'Grady had three paddocks •- of wheat, one the witness estimated to yield about 41 or 42 bushels, another rather more, and the third about 25 bushels. Tha whole of the first, and nearly all, the second paddocks were threshed when the waste was noticed. The stacks should have threshed within 20 bushels of eaeh other. Witness could any time estimate the yield of a growing crop within three bushels. After§oarting . five loads of threshed straw about a bushel and a half of wheat was found in the bottom of the dray. A horse which bad eaten a part of the straw was taken ill, and witness attributed this to the quantity of wheat remaining.—Cross-examined by Mr Crisp : Had been overseer at Wester* field, and had a farm of bis own seven years ago. Had 16 orjl7 years’ experience with threshing machines in England. Six or seven stacks were unthreshed at the time the waste was discovered. Had reen the crop twice a week while growing. A nor’-west wind knocked out nearly half , the wheat grown in the third paddock. 1 The wheat was stacked • dry.; —Re-ex-amined by Mr Wilding : It was impossible to say bow much wheat remained in the straw, but he thought fully ten per cent. —James Brown was carting for O’Grady last season after the threshing was finished. Amongst the straw carted away there WM

a good quantity of wheat.. '!'«• k some of the straw off the bags, and then noticed wheat on the top of the bags. Knew that the straw had been carted with the wheat. Never saw such a thing as wheat in the same place, and it coaid not have got out of the bags, which were done up. This was the second time of moving the straw. By Mr Cri»p : Witness was a laborer, twenty years of ago, and had been six ■ ' years in the colony. Could not say how long after the threshing he went to O’Grady’s. Saw the wheat that had come from the straw whan carting it. The straw was for bedding for the horses, and witness thought that eleven loads were carted. Could not say how many bushels oame from, the straw, but there was not a bushel on top of the bags. The straw was pitchforked from the heap on to the bags. Knew the wheat came from the straw became he saw it fall.—John O’Grady, farmer deposed that his farm near Winehmore comprises 256 acres. Witness engaged Eden to thresh his wheat. There was a good deal of grum- . bling about the price, but ultimately they Oame to terms, viz 3Jd per bushel, Eden to find all hands except a man provided by the witness to stack the bags. Had been farming in New Zealand forfonrtean ■ years. He had not arranged with Eden to pay 13s per thoutand for a bag sewer. Eden had ten men employed upon the machine. . This was the usual staff. The threshing wai commenced on the 17th March. The first paddock, of 56 acres, containing 6 stacks and a butt, yielded 1,608 bushels of best wheat and 33 bushels of seconds; the second paddock, of 68 acres, containing 7 stacks and 1 butt, yielded 2,2.0 bushels of best wheat, also 33 beshels of seconds. Witness estimated the first paddock to yield about 42 bushels, the second about 47 bushels. He could undertake to estimate any growing . crop within five bushels to the acre. The grain was stacked very early and in exceptionally, good condition. He lost nothing from the first or second paddock by wind, there was some loss from the third paddock. Butler and O’Brien first ■■ ■ directed his attention to the grain remaining in the atraw, and after examination , he spoke to Eden on the matter, who professed to know nothing of the condi- ■ tion* of the straw, and refused to examine it. Witness told Eden that be Would not' pay for the threshing done, and they agreed that it would be better to knochtn.' At this time other, thirteen or fourteen stacks had been threshed. One of his horses had taken part of the straw, and displayed all the usual symptoms of boraes whiah have eaten wheat. After the waste was discovered a stack was threshed in the second paddock, which yielded 380 bushels of best and 15 bushels of seconds ' wheat Tlie stack threshed immediately : before the discovery yielded only 300 '•' bushels of best and 9 bushels of seconds. These figures were supplied by a man in Eden’s employ. Thefirst of these two stacks "wsa larger than the other. After witness Bpokefto >-. den he continued to thresh, but the'waste stopped. Witness had refused 8s Id per bushel at Lauriston railway station for the wheat. He calculated that ’he had lost 50 bushels from each up to the 13J stacks threshed. —Cross-examined by Mr Crisp : The usual price for threshing daring the seisson had been 3Jd psi bnsheL If the farmer found a bag-sewer there was a difference. He could not re* ’member paying Morshead for a bag-sewer | bn a previous occasion. Witness had promised Eden to secure him other thresh* j log if possible. : The machine had been { working about five days when witness com- , plained of the threshing. About 100 bushels , per day was fairly good work. About ten * of the stacks badly threshed were nearly 1 - of ‘ equal ■ size, the three others were ! x -Smaller. 'He had never offered to pay plaintiff for the work. When plaintiff ■ applied for payment witness asked if he was prepared to pay for the damage, i Eden declined to do so, and witness said i be would not pay for the threshing. Eden finished threshing on the 28th 'March, and he presented his acconnt about six or seven weeks later. Witness burnt the stacks about a month after ] threshing, as he wished to plough the , -land. Had suggested to one of . Eden’s men that a part of the straw should be threshed again.— 1 S. Saunders was acquainted with farming operations. If, as he gathered from the evidence, the. wheat was threshed - and then mixed with the straw, it would I have been practically impossible so re- | cover the grain by re-threshing. The j grain would have-escaped from the straw while being forked to the combine. —D. Brick had 20,G00 bnshels of grain threshed during the present season at a charge of S£d per bushel. He provided one man -/ only to assist, which he thought was the custom. —James Protherpe had driven a threshing machine during the past season, j The custom has been for the farmer to find the bag‘sower.—This closed the case for the plaintiff , [Left sitting.]