MAGISTERIAL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1423, 3 December 1886, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

ASHBURTON— FRIDAY

(Before Mr H. G. S. Baddeley, 8.M.)

Civil CASHS Ashburton Publishing Company v. F. Mallaby.—Claim, £4 2s 6d, for printing and advertising. Jod nient by default, with costs. The Magistrate stated that he had received a telegram from the defendant confessing his indebtedness. Tins was an informal way of confessing judgment, and could not be recognised. QDr Koss v. Mone.- Claim, £4 B s . Mr Purnell for plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff by confession, payments to be made, as agreed, at the rate of £1 per month. „ . , r Same v. Keith.—Claim £4 3s Bd. Mr Parnell for plaintiff. Judgment by default, with costs. Same v. Crosbie. —Claim, £2O 15a 6d. Mr Purnell for plaintiff. Mr Cayg.ll for defendant. Plaintiff’s counsel stated the account had been running since 1881. He doubted whether the defence was a bona fide one, and he thought the object of wishing an adjournment was to gain time. Defendant, in reply to the Court, stated that he had been charged wrong y for medical attendance. He could not obtain information relating to the account, although he had applied for same. Mr Parnell said the defendant had frequently promised to pay the account. His Worship suggested a conference between the parties, with a view to an amicable settlement, which was agreed to by counsel. Rouse v. Whaley —Claim, £44, for rent of a billiard room at the Canterbury Hotel at Methven. Mr Wilding for plaintiff, Mr Crisp for defendant Mr Bouse, landlord of Uie Canterbury Hotel, deposed that on the 15'h of November, 1883, he let the billiard room to Whaley at £1 15s pe- week. Whaley was to receive the takings Witness was to provide kerosene and all accessories. There was a verbal agreement Defendant held the room for the time claimed, till April 23rd, 1884, during which time he received every shilling. Did a good business at that time. The takings wo dd be between £4 and £5 per week. Would swear the takings exceeded £4 per week Witness had taken £6 and £7 when business was in a similar rtate. Defendant had bis board and lodging free (Mr Wilding: A very nice little billet. — Laughter.) Defendant stopped in the house about a month after he gave up tho room—about three or four weeks. The reason plaint ff left the claim so long iras because he could see no chance of obtaining the amount due Defendant bad obtained judgment aga nst witness for £3 8s 6d, for wages from September 6, 1886. Witness ma-'e a contra claim before the Methven J stices, but the amount was above the jurisdiction of that Court. Witness agreed to the sum of £5 3s being deducted,—Cross-examined : Produced day book, cash book, and lettger for 1883-4. Witness had no entry of the first item of £4O ss. only entry he had was ef the dates the defendant took the room and left it. Entries of cash payments by defendant were, of coarse, also entered. . ■ [Witness was cross-examined at'ength respecting entries in his books, as to when defendant left the room, &c.] He never gave Whaley a written account of what he owed him Witness asked him frequently to pay the rent, remarking that as he was doing a good business 1 e should pay it instead of spending the receipts in drink. He could not trust defendant, who was drinking every ten minutes of the day. Paid frequently for games he p ayed, although it was understood he should nol be charged, “my playing being for the good of business ” His Worship could quite understand anch an agreement.

By the Court: Allowed defendant to remain in the house after “I cleaned him out of the billiard-room,” because he had nowhere else to go to After he left Pattman's, where he said he got no wages, defendant came back to ray hotel and worked for a time Whaley for this was allowed 10s per week by the Methven Justices. Mrs Bouse, wife of the plaintiff, gave corroborative evidence Witness thought the arrangement with Whaley was for payment at the rate of £2 10a a week Whaley, defendant, deposed that ho etaved with Rouse for some time When witness sued plaintiff for wa es, he <on sideredtbat asettlement had been effected The set-off put in by house was for £l9 10s, the amount being reduced by R use to bring it within the jurisdiction of the Methven Justices. Mr Baddeley : If Rouse did so abandon part of his claim, it is rather a peculiar thing that *he case was not heard Mr Wilding : Yes, yonr Worship. Witness continued : When he took the room he told Bouse that he could not tell him what it was worth. It was agreed that witness should continue for a time, in order to see what it was worth There never was any definite arrangement. Mr Bouse played three or four games a day, sometimes winning, sometimes losing The charge was Is per game Rouse never paid for the games he lost. Witness often paid Rouse m< ney lor the rent f the room, but could not give dates " hen witness left the room, House told him he could remain at the hotel tiff he ot something to do In return for free board, witness was required to keep Houses books, and conduct h's correspondence. On November 13th 1886, Rouse offered witness £1 to settle all claims He also sa)d there ■was an amount due 'or the billiard room, hut that as he hacUn '■ day or date he could not recove-. 'No claim waa made by Bouse until witoe s deman-

ded payment of wages When witness first took the 100 m, he took a out £3 a week ; when he left, about 10 1. The average amount taken, iecludiog that booked, was about 30a Cross-examined : Don’t know what my predecessor or successor paid for the room at Methven The marker at Pattm&n’s pays nothing. “Times •re too hard to pay retit fob a billiard roorp r Am ijj receipt of reiiiittarpes from sometimes. He entered all the games played by Bonse, bat lost the pocket book in wbicb tbs entries wears made.

by tiie Cm-1: He comd nay cletini e ! y how much money he paid Rouse for rent Mr Wilding : Mr Rouse is quite willing to allow for any cash payments to which the defendant cm honestly swear. M- Baddeh y : He says he paid about £G 15 s over and above whi; Rouse has credited

Mr Wilding; We are quite willing to allow that sum.

His Worship, in giving judgment for £3O IGs and (with usual costs), said it was ridiculous to suppose that the billiard room was t- be had for nothing, and £1 15s u week, with board, &c., included, seemed to him to he a reasonable amount. 0. W. Baker vMca'-:i. ciaim £8 i2s. Mr Cu'hbertsori for p'a at ff. Mr Wil ii g for defendant. Wi ; nesses In the case w<-re jrdered out of Court

Plaintiff, a member of the firm of B iker Bros., d< posed—Remember purchasin',? a maro from the defendant on September 11th Saw the mare at Mr Mcßae's. Thought it was a good animal, and would match another of mine. The price was £9 10s. Asked if she was good in harness, at it was useless for me to have a horse that was Dot, He replied that the mare was thoroughly good in a ngle harness, and had been employed In cart ing. Asked what she could pull, and he said sh« had been taking half-i-ton rf feed regularly to the aheap. He als gauranteed her to be not more than 8 years old. The horse and mare wefe matched, and I was at first satisfied with the purchase. Maclean wan e-d a deposit when I rgreed to give him £9 10. Re fused to do so until I had seen the mare in harness. On the same day Maclean osme back and a?ked me to settle as he wished to purchase another horse. Asked him to leave a note that she was good in harness. He pooh-poohed the idea, saying such a note was quite unnecessary. Thought I could take his word and left the cheque with my brother to settle with the defendant. The la'ter came ro' nd to our place with the mare in a trap, when Bh‘> appeared quiet enough Went away sg>in and returned with the mare only Ab.ar a week a terwar ls I tried the mare In a trap wh-lch she coo'd n >t pull an inch f>r fuly ten minutes On 17th October the ssme thing happened when she w»s tried by a man in my employ. •' e tried her for about half an hou •; she kept backing, then sat down, and finally rolled over. (Laughter ) His Worship—Rather a lively experience. Witness—The mare was sold by auction for £3 5a at Bu'lock’s Arcade- Maclean was first asked to take the mare back. The animal was sold on Novem er 6 h The mare was fed first month on oats and chaff

Mr Wilding : No wonder she jibbed Witness : Afterwards we gave her two feeds a day r lhe cost of keep was about 6s a week. Lent the mare to Fawcetts once to go to Wakanui. Have had considerable experience of horses. The mare could not have been properly broken in.

Cross-exanrned : Don’t know whether Maclean told my brother he would sooner take the ; mare hack than g'vo any guarantee. Tried therna ein the hearse. Mr Wildiig: How did she go ? Witness : I took her out quicker than I put her in. (Laughter ) By the Court —Witness instructed his solicitor to write as he advised to tho defendant. W’os positive that Maclean guaranteed the mare to be good in single harness.

John Ware Baker, brother of 'ast witness, deposed : Witness remember-’d his brother leaving with him a cheque for £9 10s to pay Maclean for the mare. Defendant called for the cheque and witness took the receipt, and wrote out a guarantee, which Mnclean| declined to sign. Witness then tore it up. The paper asked the defendant to guarantee that the mare was good and sou d, and the defendant refused, saying 'hey could fake his word for it that she was good in single harness, and, as far ns he knew, also in double harness. (Witness here corroborated his brother’s evidence as to the anim; I’s fracliousness.) Mr Wilding askei what was done with the receipt.

Witness : It is unstamped in my office The paper was sent for, and after payment of the usual fine, was admitted in evidence

Witness, to Mr Wilding —The guarantee was on the same p*per a* the receiptDefendant bjected to sign it. and it was torn off The mare was wanted more for the lu arse than anything else Maclean would not guarantee that the mare would would run in double harness.

Henry Thompson, in the employ of Mr Scott, livery stable keeper. Charles Fawcett, a laborer, and J Trevurza, deposed as to the mare’s fr'Ctiou'ness in harness. The last witness said he bought t h e mare three years ago for £4 5s She was then an aged mare. J. A. ivtacpherson, auctioneer, and Thos. Hughes, who sa d he was used to horses, deposed that in their opinion mare was not staunch. They also gave evidence respecting the cu«t m in Ashburton of giving wri'ten and verba 1 guarantees In the purchase and sale of s ock

Kor the defence Mr Wilding called he defendant, a farm manager, who deposed : The mare was not my property, but I gave the Bakers the impression that sh was. Haveh»d the mare in use about 18 months. She only refused to pull onc° — In a dray Fver rfter I had ro diffiooHv in either riding nr driving her. The Babers asked me if she would go quietly In harness, and I told them I won d show them. Afterwards I drove up to Biker’s place, but could n>t see either of 'be breherr! I took the mare out of the stable, put her in harness, and droy • about, coming back <o Bakers’ yard Went to his private h use red back again to yard, where B- ker saw the ra’te In harness. Ask'd him to eet In the trap and diive himself. Ha refused, saying b* would walk J drove, when he B‘opped me, saying he was satisfied she waa quiet. I had no wish to sell the mare. Baker sfkrd if she would go in double harn-ss and I sMd I did not know ; she had been employed in the plough, and in carting feed for th ■ sheep When I received the cheque I refused to guarantee the mare as being staunch and sound, and remarked that sooner than do so I would lake t'er home. I tore off the guara- tee and gave a receipt on the I lank paper at foot Received no notice that fe mare was going to be sold by Baker Bros

After hearing further evidence regarding the capabilities of the mare and her quietness His Worship gave judgment {< r £6 12s. with costs, £6 7s. The Court adjourned at 2 30.