RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1536, 31 July 1885, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

ASHBURTON— To-day.

(Before H. 0. S. Baddeley, Esq., R.M) Leitoh v Fried lander Bros, claim L 66 13) 3d.—Mr Wilding for the-plaintiff, Mr Purnell for the defendants—The evidence for the plaintiff and part of the evidence for the defendants in this case were taken last Court day. The chief item of the claim, L6l 4<, was for damages sustained by a crop of oats growing last season upon 61 acres land at Dundas, Seafidd, leased by plaintiff from H. Fnedlauder. by the trespass of sheep, the property of defendants. * The plaintiff alleged that a flock of about 1,000 sheep, the property of defendants, had trespassed on the crop on December 20 and 30 last, by which the yield of the crop was reduced from 40 bushels to 23 bushels an acre. The following additional evidence for the defence was taken to day William Sutherland, farmer, said he had bad 25 years experience in agricultural pursuits The probable yield of a crop of oats, before coming into ear, could only be approximately estimated. The yield was often affdcte i by■ circumstances arising after the crop came into ear Farmers were frequently deceived in their estimates of yield. It would he difficult for a passer-by to accurately estimate the yield of a crop 20 chains distant. A. water-race would improve the crop immediately adioining it. Stock camping on land would increase its fertility. Unless manure were distribnted it would make the crop uneven. Blight was often caused by insuffioieut ploughing. There was more danger of a thin crop being broken down than a thick one. Two bushels of oats to the acre should be sown on light land —By Mr Purnell: The heavier the land the more seed witness used. On his own farm at the Ashburton Forks he nsed 2£ bushels of seed to the acre. Horses were the worst stock to precede a crop, their manure was not distributed, it became bard, and when .ploughed it kept the land too dry and open. Grain grown on such land was liable to blight and smut. Blight first attacked the roots of cereals; if a plant affected were pulled up the roots would be found covered, witly disease similar to cabbage blight. Smut was more frequent on light than on heavy land. Smut showed itself when the grain was coming in ear ; blight sometime later— By Mr Purnell : Blight much reduced the yield of grain. —To the Bench: Farmers more frequently over-estimated than under-estimated their crops. A farmer of extended experience, familiar with the land he was cultivating, might estimate the yield of his crop within two or three bushels an acre. A “ cropper ” on strange land might be unable to estimate his crop within twenty bushels an acre.—Joseph Sturgeon said be had been present at the first trespass. He had' noticed the sheep breaking out of the woolshed, and had called the shepherd’s attention to them. The shepherd at once started in pursuit of them. Witness had not seen the crop after the trespass.—By Mr Wilding : There were about 300 sheep in the w >olahed paddock adjoining the crop. He would not swear there were not 1,200. He had told the’ plaintilf of the trespass. —By Mr Purnell; He ’did not regard the trespass as a very serious one. Thomas Donovan said he had been present at the second trespass. The sheep had proceeded about 200 yards into the crop when witness overtook them and assisted by Harvey drove them off. Harvey remarked that tbg sheep would dono barm. Witness oould see no damage done oy the sheep; they were hot on the crop more than four minutes before witness overtook them. The crop at thit tune was aboqt 10 inches high.—By i|r Wilding ; There were certainly not mujre than 900 sheep (a the crop, he (bought

about 250 He had not told Leitch fAd Ha-vey rh*t be had aaisjtad to remove 700 or 800 sheep from the crop. The crop was from 11 t 0.12 inches high. Witness had not seen the first sheep get into the crop.—By Mr Parnell: Witness was asked while in Messrs Wilding and Cay ■ gill’s office, bh business of his own, to give his version of the trespass. If he bad mentioned 700 or 800 sheep he had allnded to the total nnmbe? in the flock, not the number trespassing —Sago Friedlander, one of the defendants, produced a cropping lease between plaintiff and himself. He had let the greater part of the Dnndas estate last year for cropping. He received, ae rent, 16s, 16s 6d and I7s 6d an acre from the tenanst The plaintiff's rent was fixed at a lower rate than the others, as they had had the pick of the land. Plaintiff said nothing of the present claim till witness was pressing him for rent.* In March plaintiff reported that he had lost a portion of the crop by fire, and estimated the crop at 20 bushels an acre. Witness had seen plaintiff during Ai>ril, when the latter said as oats were low in prije he would prefer to store them. He stored about 300 sacks, and in reply to a question from witness said the major portion of the'oats was so inferior that they would mot pay for cartage, and he would keep it for horse feed. Plaintiff had told witness in May last that ha had threshed 3,005 bushels of first oats and 116 bushels of seconds off the 186 acres. Taking the . plaintiff's figures, representing 1160 L bushels off the 51 acres, it would show the balance of the laud to have produced , leas than 14 bushels to the acre. The balance of the land waa of the same quality as the 51 acres. Defendants had paid plaintiff la 6l a bushel for a small parcel of Canadian oats, and la 41 a bnsh.el for Sparrow-bill oats. These prices were paid delivered in Ashburton ; cartage from Dnndas would - cost about l£d a bushel. Plaintiff had spoken about the trespass of the sheep at the time witness purchased the oa's. Witness referred him to his brother, and next heard of the matter by a letter from Messrs Wilding and Caygill. The account produced had been rendered by plaintiff against defendants on Jane 26 last; it made no mention of the piesent claim. There would be a considerable difference in the cost of harvesting a2O bushel and a 40 bushel crop. The difference would be 2s or 3i an acre, and threshing would cost 3d per bushel Witness had nothing to do with Harvey’s insurance. Ha met Harvey iu Fast street on April 27 and had asked what he was doing in town. Harvey had replied that be had come in to report a fire that bad occurred at Dnndas. Witness enquired about the fire, and Harvey toM him that the oats he (Harvey) had bought from Leitch ha d been destroyed by fire. They went to defendants* office together,' and Harvey had told him that he had purchased 450 bushels of short, and 1,160 bushels of long oats from Leitch at la 6i a bushel. Witness remarked upon the extraordinary character of the transaction, and having expressed himself as much annoyed by the transaction said he would look farther into the matter.' At a later interview witness -had told Harvey that Lietoh was indebted for rent, and Harvey had remarked that the amount could be paid out of money coming to him from the insurance company. Harvey represented that he owad Leitoh a balance of L7O on account of the oats purchased. Witness had asked for the insurance policy, and had been referred to Mr Branson. On seeing Mr Branson, witness discovered that Harvey had instructed Brown, of Ohriatoharob, to insure the oats. Witness remaikedjthat it was strange Harvey should have insured the orop in Ohrlstohnroh, the Oompsmy having a local branch. There was not a word of truth in Harvey’s allegation that he (witness) had threatened to stop the insurance unless allowed to participate in the proceeds. Witness could have recovered the amount from the Oolonial Insurance Co , bat he regarded the oirenmstanoea surrounding the firm as so suspicious that he made no claim. The crops at Dnndas had all failed more or leas, and witness had made allowances to all hia tenants excepting plaintiff. Witness had not made an allowance to plaintiff as he thought he had been sufficiently recouped by the fires that had occurred. —By Mr Wilding : Witness, as landlord, had insured all the crops at Dundss. The plaintiff’s oats were insured for L 360 by witness. The claim for lois v by fire produced was prepared by witness from particulars dictated by plaintiff. In the proposal for insurance no value per bushel was stated, the crops were insured at par acre. Witness could not say what was the practice in case of property insured by two offices being destroyed. He had made no loss in respect to plaintiff. Having received all procurable particulars of the fire from Deteotivo Neil, witness reported' to the Liverpool, London and Globe Insurance 00. Witness throughout had suspected the character of the fire. The police had said there were not enough ashes at the scene of the fire for a dozen sacks of oats. (At this stage of the proceedings Mr Wilding asked the Magistrate to order the witness to produce a copy of the report referred to. The Magistrate, no notice to produce having been given, declined to make the order). Witness had never given plaintiff permission to remove the oats, except to defendants’ store, the letter produced was written by defendants authorising Harvey to permit the removal of plaintiffs grain. The tenants paying 15s, 16s fid and 17s 6i an acre were at liberty to grow wheat, oats or barley. Plaintiff took his section too late to grow wheat. Some of the tenants grew oats on land fotwhioh they had paid the higher rates, A forty bushel orop would ooat more than a twenty-three bushel crop even if the straw of both were eqnal. —By Mr Parnell; Plaintiff’s rent was not paid till snad for two weeks - ago: The only reason for not allowing plaintiff to grow wheat : was the lateness of the season.—M. Fried--1 lander, recalled, said Harvey’s statement 1 that he had estimated plaintiff’s crop at 37 1 bushels an acre was incorrect.—By Mr Wilding : Witness had estimated his qwa orop at Dnndas at 20 bushels an acre. He had told Harvey to clear off the place ; he waa very much annoyed with him at the time. Harvey had had a month’s notice of the termination of his engagement.— This closed the evidence for the defence, ■ and the following rebutting evidence was i called for the plaintiff:—John Harvey s«id the witness Donovan had stated in Messrs Wilding and OaygiU’a office that 700 or 800 sheep had broken into the orop, and that the crop at the time was 12 or 18 inches high.—By Mr Purnell: The height of the orop varied. Witness bad taken no exceptional interest in the case, except to clear hia own character. Counsel having addressed the Court, judgment was reserved. Stevens v Lambis, claim L4.—Mr Branson for thq plaintiff, Mr Wilding for the defendant.—Plaintiff nonsuited. Moorehead v Campbell and Matheson, claim L 26 15s.—Mr Crisp for the plaintiff, Mr Wilding for the defendants. (Left sitting.)