MAGISTERIAL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1285, 10 July 1886, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

AB3BU ITON—FRIDiT. [Before Mt H. 0. S. Baddeley, R.M.] CITXI OASES. Porter v. Ro >ney and Rooney, claim £6O —Tin folic Ting is our report of the conclusion of tl. s case. —F. Standi ih had seen the turnipi in question; the crop was a good one. The fence a r ound the j block was sheep-proof,—Mr Oaygilt resumed his argument with regard to the admission of certain evidence, and produo >d authorities in support of his contention.—Mr Purnell replied.—The Bench ruled against Mr Gaygil).—This was the plaintiff's ease, and the Court then adjourned for half an hour.—On resuming Mr Purnell called Wm. Rooney, who said he saw Robb on November 5 last. Robb wanted witness’s land for a crop of tnrnips. Said it was not fenced. Robb pointed ont the benefit the land wonld derive from a crop of turnips, and said if witness gave him the land he would put up the fence for nothing. It was arranged ] that the fence was to be a three sod bank, the sods to be dug by a spade, and stakes and three wires. Robb was also to give a guarantee for a growth of gorse. Robb was to find mat rial and witness was to pay for it. On account of the risk it was arranged that if Robb did not have a good crop of turnips witness was to pay him 2s per ohainforthefence. (The witnesscontradieted portion of the evidenos given by James Robb.) Did not see (he place, before he received the letter from Robb with reference to the sale of the turnips Went to look at the fence and found it was not erected as was agreed upon, (He stated what was the condition of the fence when he inspected It) —By Mr;Oiygill : Witn bb got £2l 10s for the turnips John Rooney did not see the land after the arrangement was made with Robb until be took possession. Heard Robb had gone away, and went to have a look at the p’ace. Found Robb had not fulfilled bis contract , with regard to the fence, and therefore took possession of the turnips (Witness described the manner in which the fence was erected, and also the sort of fence which ho alleged should have been made ) At that time witness knew nothing of a sale to P Let the turnips to Mr Sprott for 9s per acre on a Thursday evening, and he put his sheep in the next day. On Sunday Porter came to witness about the turnips. Wltne s said they were let, and Porter then wanted to know who had the “eyes” to lot them Witness went to Jama* Robb’s place John Robb wanted to know why witness bad sole another man’s turnips. Witness replied that it was on acciunt of the fence not being put up properly. The fence which Rob i had put np was of no value, and the ground was spoiled should it Vo tried to erect another fence. The witness wrs cross-examined at considerable length by Mr Oaygill. —David Saunders know 1 Rooney’s land. He remembered Rodney taking possession of the o:op of turnips. The fence was a bad one, and had fallen down in four different places. There was no gorse growing on the bank. On the part where there was no bank the fence was defective. Witness thought a proper sod bank fence could be erected at that part. Witness would as soon have a ploughed sod fence as a spade dog sod if the work was done well ; in this instance it was not done well. Alexander Gordon said be was sent with Sprott’s sheep to Rooney’s place. He described the condition in which ho fi.und the fences. On the portion where there was no bank the wires not were strained properly ; the sod bank portion appeared to be in fairly good order.—Henry Sprott also gave evidence relative to the condition of the fence. — This was ail the evidence —Mr Purnell addressed the Bench for the defence. He pointed out that there was a serious discrepancy between the statement of claim and the chief witness for the plaintiff, the one absolutely contradicting the other He submitted that under the circumstances the p’aint'ff must be nonsuited. —Mr Oaygill agreed to accept a nonsuit —— Plaintiff nonsuited with costs. The Court then rose.