RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1296, 3 July 1884, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

♦ <■ ASHBURTON,—To dat. * (Before H. 0. S.. Baddeley, Esq., R.U.) -■.■•S Drunkenness—A first offender was fined fis and cost, with the usnat altema* ■- , tive. . ■ '.• : *

Unregistered Dogs—Patrick Tolly,'? W. Prebble, fl. Anderson, S. Holland, ; W. Brown, el. Spencer, W, Gray, Isaac \ Sargent, Joseph Sloane, Wm. Lockhart, were each fined 10a, as the owner*of anregistered dogs. Obstructing the Footpath—W, Madden was find 10a and costs for-obstructing • a footpath within the Borough, by tying a horse across the same. ■ cira case. -m New Zealand Loan and Co. v. Orr and Co., claim L 29 ss. This Case was partially heard at last sitting of the Court, when George Wilkin, (agent at Ashburton for the plaintiffs, posed that'the Company held a lien the crops of a farmer named Sloane. A. portion of the grain bad been delivered to-/ the plaintiffs, but ISObushelsof whealwcrev « stored.by Sloane in Zouch’s store, add of '• these the defendants took forcible posses- -"ml sion to satisfy a claim they had against rS Sloane. The plaintiffs how for the ■ value of 180 'bushels' -of wheats *—■ Mr Crisp appeared ■ ;for 3 J the plaintiffs, Mr-Parnell for the de- f j fendants.—A. Bjoxham, Registrar of. the « Christchurch," produced”^ 1 an attested copy of an agricultural lien - • ? made between J. Sloane and the New "‘..'i; Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Co., V. - on the 20th October, 1883, and filed J , on the 23rd October, 1883,—Joseph Sloane said that hid *farihl at. Long--beach consisted of 90 odd acres. The - 5? property was mortgaged to the Load and:'.. * Mercantile Agency Company, and they ' * had a lien over the crop last year. * When ■■■'■■ * he.gave-thblieato the Oompany he received a cheque for L4> ; odd, which he .ret.ujmed rt his own free will Lo satiify aau* 'account 'the Company had against him. ,* No one asked him to do this. He alsoA • ■gave the ben over his ; crop unsolicited by? J ‘ S the Company. Wm. -Lockhart was his father-in-law, and was'permitted by wit- - . ness to reside upon-his property, and crop part of the farm. There was :no written "j ..agreement between the, parties in respect '’j 7 to this arrangement, ; and witness ,hadp •; never received any interest or rent. .Ho' * had previously Igiven liens to Mr J. Gtigg' ' and the Company while Lockhart: was living on the farm. Lockhart was aware . *J of these securities being given. : . Witness i told Lockhart [he had given, the ; lien: in- ■ " volved in the present action, and Lock? hart replied that he did not care—witness might do as he had done before. He had received further advances in money and goods from the Company! subsequent to the execution of the lien. Lockhart had used some of the goods. 1 Witness,had re-. , * ceived from the Company all the advances he applied, for. Had seen some wheat in., Zouch’s store delivered Jjy Lockhart,' The 7» ' wheat was grown pn witness’s farm, andV ; * was under lien to the Company. When--Lockhart took the wheat- from the- farm' witness thought he: was going to deliver it- ■- to the Company, but-Lockhart told him,:afterwards that he had taken it to Orr and 00. Witness remarked that the'Company' should have had the wheat, as they had a - " = lien. Lockhart replied to &e rthabother people must be paid. Witness informed the Company %t once. ' of this .occurrence. He also .saw. Mr J. Orr, and told him there was"'' a lien on the grain. by • Mr -Purnell: He had given Lockhart ’* permission to occupy a part of the land,' , -■ and promised that if he could purchase at * the expiry of the mortgage at LLS per acre, he could have half the farm. In _* the meantime Lockhart was to pay Ll5O down and half the amount of the interest * on the mortgage as rent to the Company-- : r or witness. Lockhart- had paid part of -. this rent. The division between the parties was hot completely fenced. Lock- 1 '•* * hart had a house upon the farm, and ‘b'. cultivated his poition of the la id as he pleased. Lockhart had usually sold hie grain through the Company. Aweekba-* fore the last lien was given witness told * Mr Wilkin, the Company’s agent, that, he , was unable to pay the interest, but would'' * * give a lien for the amount. The differ- ■' once between the amount of lien and the ' amount of interest represents the balance J" of the previous year’s account. He had possession of the cheque paid on execution ‘ f of the lien, and Mr Wilkin did not apply for-it to be returned. L 5 in cash and*- - oornsacks were all he actually took away • } from the Company.—George Bindermann, clerk to the N.Z. Loan and Mercantile v 00., said the Company purchased some V wheat from Lockhart, a part of which was rejected, and Lockhart asked how Sloane’s account would be covered if they did not take this wheat.—T. FF. Zouch,

said that Lockhart bad delivered about 180 bushels of wheat, which he said was from his farm, to witness’s store.' The Company afterwards gave witness notice that they held a lien over the grain. Orr and Cq

had subsequently taken forcible possession of the grain. Witness told Mr John Ore of the lien, and he replied that he would taxe no notice of it, as it was worthless,

—William Lockhart, called for the defence by Mr Purnell, said that he had

agreed with Sloane to purchase a part of his land. Witness was to pay Ll san acre for the land' wbeu the present mortgage

expired, and in the meantime one .half the interest. It was arranged which part of the land witness should have, and'he had

erected a house upon his portion. He had cultivated and improved the land, and-

regularly paid his share of the interest tp the Company. Hp bad sold his produce at his own discretion to different parties, Last year he sold 400 bushels to the Com*

pany. and about 2QO bushe’s to Orr and

Co. He produced receipts from the Company for gram delivered, which was bn

his own account. List year he paid interest to *he Company, for which Ur Wilkin gave him a receipt. Witness had told Mr Cooke, the Christchurch manager

of the Company, of the arrangement between Sloane and himielf. Mr Cooke ac-

companied witness to Mr Weymouth’s office, and the h tter said in the presence of Mr Cooke, that he knew witness had been occupying part of Sloane’s land for some years. Sloane hall never told witness of his intention to give a lien. 'Witness first heard of the lien! after he had sold his crop to Orr and Co. Witness had never consented to a lien being given', over his crop. Sloane had never disputed : witness’s right to remain upon the land.' The Company had never informed witnese of the execution of the lien by Sloane.— Cross-examined by Mr Crisp ; He. had been in occupation of the land about; five years. He' had not been turned

off by Mr Qrigg, but took Sloane’s laud " as' he offering it los , sale, and witness thought It better than that he was then occupying, fie had never used Sloane’a horses or imple* meats. He remembered no lien ■■ being given to Mr Qrigg. Ocr and Co. .were to pay 3s Id for wheat delivered to them.. The purchase money was credited to ness’s account with defendant* (MtOrisp; proposed to lead eyideqoe to ehqif .ttV'i witness’s financial position, but it ipa® pb* 5 j'octed to by»Mr Purnell and disallowed, by the Bench.) fie had paid interest 'to ih« Oompanj in money; last year it was paid by. grain. —John Orr, said that Lockhart had been a quafomet of UU Ipm far idßs

I lie time witness purchased th< pate, Lockhart owe! the firn ole amount. Witness hac topped his credit, but Lock m 200 bushels of wheat, anc ►wed him to have goods. Wit [ Lockhart to take the wheal ore. Ho first heard of the o months afterwards. -Crossf Mr Crisp: When Mr Wild witness of the lieu, he ►plied that the Company had security. It is the custom ers of wheat to pay purchase > holders' of the lien if the idonbtedly good, The wheat d about six weeks after the 'ounsel having addressed the isiderablo (length, judgment until the 11 th instant.