RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1280, 14 June 1884, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

ASHBURTON. — Yesterday. (Before H 0, S. Baddeley, Eaq., B.M) civil. CASK. O’Qrady v. Eden. — ln this case Mr Crisp called the following evidence for the defence: —Nelson Eden, the defendant, had made an arrangement with plaintiff to thresh his grain at 3!td per bushel. There was nothing said about a bagsewer. When witness came to thresh he told the plaintiff that he would not find all hands at per bushel —in that case he would require 4d per bushel. Plaintiff said he ' Supposed then that he would have to find the bagsewer, and it was ultimately arranged that ths man connecte ’ with ttie machine should do this work for the plaintiff. The plaintiff was about the machine the whole vf the time it was engaged threshing his grain. The stacks wero w»t <»nd growing upon the tops, but the threshing was we 1 !-done in every respect. There is always a certain amount of waste in threshing all grain, When the straw is wet it is largqr. The machine was stopped sever?! times by rain. When the plaintiff complained of the threshing witness asked why he had not spoken before, and offered to knock off. Plaintiff would not allow him to knock off, and he finished the threshing without further complaint. Witness handed the account for the work to the plaintiff about seven weeks later. The plaintiff asked witness if he would accept a smaller amount in satisfaction, and when he declined to do so plaintiff said he might summons him for it. The machine had done 1,800 bushels in one day, elsewhere and the plant was in excellent order. It was impossible to estimate accurately the quantity of wheat left in straw. The plaintiff’s stacks varied in size. The yield of one stack was no guide to the contents of another of the same size.-—Cross-examined by Mr Wilding: Had never made an allowance for negligent threshing. B. Hampton had complained of the manner in which his had been done, and witness made a concession upon this price, but this was not on account of the qua’ity of the work. Hampton had not declined to pay the account unless an allowance was made for bad workmanship. The plaintiff’s wheat was slightly damaged while in stock. Witness would not swear that any rain had fallen upon it. The wet grain was passed through the machine. Witness acted as engine driver and looked after the machinery. Plaintiff removed some damp sheaves from the stacks, but there were some left. Witness refused to work at the straw when requested to do so by the plaintiff as he was busy. If the machine was over fad there would be additional waste.—To the Bench ; Did not think it unwise to decline to examine the straw with the plaintiff. The straw was very heavy.— liichard Neland had been employed on Eden’s machine while it was threshing O’Qrady’s crop. It was a fairly good crop to thresh.—Cross-examined by Mr Wilding : The grain was fairly good. O’Grady removed the wet sheaves and they were dried. —Robert Madeira was a th eshirag mactiine proprietor. From 1,000 to 1,200 bushels was a fair day’s work for a machine in a day of 10 hours. The farmer usually finds the bag-sewer. The wheat was difficult to thresh last season and the usual unavoidable waste was increased. Could not possibly estimate the quantity of grain remaining in the straw.—Crossexamined by Mr Wilding : He would not pass wet grain through his machine.— Weymouth Roberts was a machine proprietor. The straw daring the past season had been very wet. He could not closely estimate the quantity of grain remaining in straw after threshmg. There is no custom amongst machine proprietors except to get as much as* they can for work done.—Cross examined by Mr Wilding , Did ngt think that a loss of one per cant occurred with ordinary good threshing. —This closed the evidence, and counsel having addressed the Bench his Worship reserved judgment.