RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1285, 20 June 1884, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

ASHBURTON.— To-day. (Before H. C. S. Baddeley, Esq., R,M.) CIVIL CASES. Tucker, Reatell and Co. v Jordon, claim L2 10s.— Judgment by default for amount claimed with costs. Same v Campbell, claimLS ss.—Judgment by default for amount claimed with costs. Lublow v Nathan, claim L2.—Judgment by default for amount claimed with costs. Adams v Bell, claim L 9 12s 6d.—Mr Branson for plaintiff. —George Adams said that on January sth last he engaged to work for the defendant at 22s 6d a week until harvest, and 40« a week during harvest. He had earned the amount claimed under this agreement, but had not received payment of any defendant said that the plaint ff had left his employ at a very critical time without proper notice. He had engaged the plaintiff for the whole of the harvest. It was imt understood that he might leave at anytime. —George Adams, re-called, said that he engaged at the low rate of wages on the understanding that he might leave whenever he could better himself.— Judgment for the amount claimed with Luut v Johns, claim LlO 13s 6d.—Mr Branson for defendant. —William Lunt, the plaintiff, deposed to the accuracy of the account. Cross-examined by Mr Branson : He had not received a reaper and binder from defendant m satisfaction of the claim, but ho had taken it as security, to be returned as soon as the account was paid.—Albert Johns, the defendant, said that in April last he saw plaintiff at Harrison’s yards, when it was arranged between the parties that a Wood's reaper and binder should be taken in discharge of the account.—The ease was adjourned for the production of a witness alleged to have been present whan the plaintiff agreed to accept the reaper and binder in satisfaction of the account. Hicks v Betts, claim 19s 6d. Judgment for amount claimed with costs.

Lemon v Spencer, claim Ll 3 10.— Mr Crisp for plaintiff ; Mr Caygill for defendant- —David Lemon, the plaintiff, said that he had let a small section and whare near the gas works at 5s a week to the defendant. He had at the request of defendant catted some timber to Cooper

Bros at the Hinds Gorge, for which hs had never received payment. Crossexamined by Mr Oaygill: He had not previously rendered an account to defendant for the amount now claimed for rent of cottage. \N£itness had not used the section himself during the tenancy of defendant. He could not swear that the section was his, but he had his brother’s authority to let it. The amount now claimed for cartage constituted a part of the set-off put in by witness in the case Spencer v Lemon before the Court last weak..—Geo. Bennison had been employed by defendant, and had by his direction requested the plaintiff to take a load of timber to Cooper Bros,, at the Hinds. "Cross-examined by Mr Caygill; Witness understood that the timber was carted for defendant. He was not on on very bad terms with Spencer, but they never spoke.—James Spencer, the defendant, had asked plaintiff if he might put his horses in the section near the gas works, and plaintiff consented, subject to the approval of his brother. The brother gave his consent, and witness had used the section. A number of other people had put horses and cattle on the section, lie had never sent Bennison to plaintiff,, but had seen him himself and told him there was a load for Cooper Bros, which he might take if he liked. - Cross-exa-mined by Mr Crisp : He had used the section with other people. He had no contract for carting with Cooper Bria. 1 he statements made by Lemon and Bennison w t ere not correct.—Judgment for defendant, with costs.

Hew Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency v. Orr and Co., claim, L 29 ss. Mr Crisp for plaintiffs, Mr Purnell for defendants. —George Wilkin, agent for the plaintiffs in Ashburton, produced the certificate of corporation of the company. He knew Joseph Sloane, a farmer at Longbeaoh. Sloane’s farm consiated of 9S acres 1 rood, and witness produced the certificate of title to the land. He also produced an agricultural lien given by Sloane to the Company over 68 ooroa~ot. crop. ■ The crop was growing on part of the land described in the certificate of title. At the time Sloane signed the lien plaintiffs advanced him L 49 7s 7d, by a cheque made payable to bearer, and witness now produced a receipt for the amount. Since the execution of the lien the Company had made further advances to Sloane on the faith of the lien, making the total advance tin ler the security L 179 15s fid. Witness had, after receiving the lien, visited Slcane’s farm. There were 40 acres of wheat and 20 acres of oats growing upon the property. Some of the wheat had been delivered to the plaintiffs which was credited to Sloane, and loft him indebted to the Company about L7O. Sloane had not disputed this account. Witness knew that a farmer named Lockhart had delivered 4fi sacks of (wheat to Zouch’s store, which witness valued at L 29 ss. This wheat was grown on Sloane’s land at Longbeach ; the defendants had never disputed this fact. Witness learnt six or seven weeks ago of the delivery of wheat to Zouch’s store, and informed Orr and Co. that the wheat was grown on

Sloane’s land at Longbeach, and that the Company had a lien over it. Witness had given Z >uch notice of the Company’s lien. On the 9th June witness went to Zouoh’s store and met Zouch, Orr, and one of the latter’s employees there. Orr was taking forcible possession of the wheat, to which Zouch objected. Witness instructed Zcuch to close the store at once, but Orr prevented this being done. Witness then left to consult his solicitor, and

during his absence Orr employed three or

four drays and men to remove the grain. Witness had seen Orr in respect to the wheat on the previous Saturday, and asked if defendants had sq larad up the matter, Orr replied that he had net, and that his contra account would absorb all the proceeds. The Company had dealt with Sloane throughout the transactions in reference to the lien. They did not recognise any other person in the matter. Witness knew that Sloane had given a imortgage over his land to the Company. If Sloane had not given the lien the Com \ pany would probably have foreclosed under the mortgage. —Cross-examined by Mr Purnell: The amount of cheque L 49 17s 7d for which Sloane gave receipt was the balance of an account due to the

Company. It was handed back to the Company. Ho could not swear that the wheat came off Sloane’s land, but he was

told by Lockhart and Sloane that it did. He produced statement of account between Sloane and the Company. The two items of interest shown there each amounting to L4B 4's were due on the mortgage. —The further hearing of this case was adjourned for a fortnight.