MAGISTERIAL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1504, 11 March 1887, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

ASHBURTON-FRIDAY.

(Before Mr H.O. S. Baddeley, R.M.) CIVIL OABEB, Lancaster v Meaclam.— Olaim £11 18s lOd. Judgment for plaintiff by default for tho amount olaimed and costs. Pcrcival v J. W. Primmer.— Olaitn £20 8a 10d on a dishonored promissory note. Mr Wilding for the plaintiff, Mr Cuthbertr eon for the defendant.— Mr Outhbertsott stated that the defendant had on the previous day been adjudged a bankrupt) bnt he was willing to oonfoss judgment. Morris v Moaclarn.— Claim £2 2a 7dY Judgment for plaintiff by default for the amount claimed and costs. O'Longhlan v Hudson.— Claim £90.— ' Mr Wilding for plaintiff, Mr Purnoll for : defendant.— This was a case m which the plaintiff, a furmer residing at Wafcanui, alleged that through negligence and bad workmanship on the part of the defendant, a threshing machine proprietor, he had lost 600 bushelß of wheat, which he valued ut £90, the amount sued for.— The following evidence was led : — Michael O'Loughlon, tho plaintiff, said that be entered into an arrangement with the defendant to thresh his wheat at 3d per bushel. The wheat, which was the produce of a little over 80 acres, was m eight stacks, the stacks being m four lots. The grain was all of the same variety, Hunter's White, but the early sown, which covered about 70 acres, waa looking a little better than that raised later. Six of the stacks were composed entirely of early sown wheat, one waß mixed and one was compoaed wholly of late sown wheat. Tho land on which the wheat was grown waß of even quality, and had all been treated m the same manner No grain was lost by nor'westers, and the wheat was harvested m prime condition. Threshing commenced on February 17th. Defendant was not there when tha machine started. The threshing had not progreeßed long before witness noticed that matters were not going on as they should, fle flaw grains of wheat remaining m the cars of the straw which had passed through the machine. A few grains— an odd one — now and then would be left m the ears with th'eshinp, but m thisJcaße witness got a number of grains out of a few ears. Witness took the grain to the driver, who said that ho would make the machine right, and knock the grain out of the straw. Witness then bad to go away on business, and on returning found that two of the six early staoks were almost finished. The machine was then shifted to another lot of Btaoka. Witness found a quantity of straw not properly threshed m tho second heap of whloh he told the driver. The following m ming they started on the fifth stack. Witness found more grain m the straw, and showed it to the driver. Ab far as witness knew, the driver did nothiog to better the working, of the machine. The three staoks which comprised the third lot having been threshed, a start was made on the eighth and laat stack. Witness fed the grain himself. The machine was re-adjusted, the drum being set closer to the concave, the effect of this being to prevent the stuff from goinsf too quiokly through the machine. This fast stack was threshed thoroughly clean, and witness ha-1 no fault to find with it. The threshing was concluded that day. On the following morning witness went to examine the heaps of c v aff, and m this he • found grain m large quantity, He examined the straw ab the same time and found it to be badly threshed. Witness met the driver and took Llm to see the choff and straw. (After an argument between Messrs Pumell and Wilding as to the admlasability aa evidence of the state- . ments of the driver when he inßpeoted the chaff, the Bench ruled these itaternents oonld not be admitted.) The witness con- . tinued, that m company with the driver he went to the defendant. The defendant Vent with them to see the ohaff. After inspection he said it was a rough jobthat the driver could not do a worse one if he tried. The defendant also told the driver he would have to '• sack," him or ihut up the machine. Witness detailed the conversation which followed, during the course of which defendant offered to winnow the chaff. Witness would not accept this offer as a full settlement because a great deal of grain would remain on the ground, and betides it had been raining and this would have a bad effect on the wheat. In addition the winnowing machine would not get the grain, oat of the etraw. Ultimately the defendant and witness each appointed an arbitrator to assess the damage, but they oould not agree. Subsequently witness received ft Jotter through defendant's solicitor, offer- ; ing to rethresh the straw. Witneßß would « not accept of this, because the weather, had been wet and beoause all tha grain could not be recovered. A wtjjfl^ came to winnow the ohaff but witness"' " stopped him. Witness knew . that the driver, of whom mention had been made, htkd loft and a fresh one had been taVen on. The witness proceeded to explain the baels upon which he estimated his loss. From five sores (the produce of whloh went to form the stack which was alleged to have been properly threshed) he obtained 85£ bushels of firsts and 3$ bushels of seconds. These five acres were late Bown and witness estimated the yield from them at two bushols less than from the early nown, Reckoning on tbis basis, if the threshing had been properly performed, the yield from the 70 acres of the early sown wheat would '■ have been about 20 bushels— it must have been over 19 busho's. Witness, aooording to this, should have got 1580 bushels of A wheat and he only got 1048 bushels.— Mt Purnell orosa-examinod the witness with a view to showing that the lon was not so great as stated — that the yield was loss than pat down by the wltnesi. — O. O. Fooks, lloensed surveyor, testified to the correctness cf plan nude by him of plalntiffVstubble land — H. W. Parsons, farmer at Se: field, had visited O'Loughlan's land. He saw the stubble. A good job had been made of the reaping, the waste being less than the average. The orop might have averaged twenty bushels to the acre. Witness lookod at the ohaff and straw. The orop had beeii very badly thteshed, wltneas had never before seen evidence or suoh bad threshing. , Witness could not say how muoh grain had been lost, but there had been a great deal. More thsn half of the whoat oould again b) collected, but it would be very muoh injured (a sample of ohaff was here brought into Court, oontainlng a number of grains of wheat). The witness oontinuad that if thb threshing hid been properly done there should have been no grains among it, A few odd grains ' atnon^ tho stravr were excusable, but m thts case witness found a great many ears averaging three or four grains each. Witness considered the thrashing very bad, he would not pass suoh work.— By Mr Parnell : If at tho limn of the threshing the straw and chaff had been gone over a good p»rt of the grain lost oould have been regained— / J. O'Sulllvan satf that he hud been ' through the plaintiff's orop while if: was ' standing. He oat j roiled thq yield at from eighteen to twenty bushels por nore. He saw tho stubble afterwards and oould se9 thus tho orop had bean well harvested. He oorrobim\tod the ovid^noo of previous witness as to the alleged bad threahiog.

He said be had found a great quantity of grain In both the straw and chaff. — A. Spring had farmed land of a similar character to the plaintiff*. Ho saw the plaintiff's early orop a few days before it Wil harvested and, from Us appaaranoo, thought that it would average twenty bushels per aore. The late sown wheat would yield two bushels loss, Wltnesß acted as arbitrator for the plaintiff on the ocoasion when two arbitrators were appointed to assess the damage, Tho threshing was very badly done, and both the oh off and straw were fall of wheat. Mr Lamb, the other arbitrator, said that he had novpr seen threshing done so badly. Witaeng heard some proposal •bout re-threihing, bat nothing definite came of it—This was the- case for the plaintiff, and Mr Parnell called the following evidence for the defence:— Henry Hudson the defendant, farmer and threshing machine proprietor, said that he sent his threshing maohine to plaintiff's place In charge of a competent driver Witness went down the same afternoon and found that two stacks had been threshed. Witness asked plaintiff how the threshing was goiug. Plaintiff said " very well. It Is going fifteen bushels." Witness remarked that that was not bo mnoh as plaintiff contemplated, because plaintiff had said previously that he estimated the yield at seventeen baahels Two days later witness saw the plaintiff, who was coming up with the driver, The driver said O'Loughlan had a complaint to make about the threshing, and witness therefore went to the plaintiff's ploco Be found that some negligent work had been done, because there was come wheat m the chaff Witness no', iced nothing out of the common m the straw, although he carefullj examined it. In one of the heapß of chaff there waa no wheat. In the first heap there was a good deal of ■wheat, but m the second there waß very little. Witncßß made a proposal to put the stuff through again to save the wheat He would have put tho straw tbroueh the combine, and the chaff through the winnowing machine. Plaintiff made no objection, but passed a remark that he did rot think that witness could sive it Witncis asked plaintiff if tho grain damaged, and offered, if it wus, to purchase it at market rate. Witness sent for Mr Hunt, who had a great deal of experience with threshing machines. He saw the chaff, and eaid that although there was wheat m it, there was not so much as a person would be led to suppose. Mr Hunt thought the proposal to rethresh a good one On one occasion the plaintiff estimated his loss at 800 bushels. Witness was present when the arbitrators went over the ground, and be related the de'atfs < f the conference. On the following Monday witness sent over a winnowing machine to put through the chaff, bnt the bandß returned saying that they did rot think the oheff waa worth pitting through. Witnpes sent them baok the next day with instructions to put the chaff through, but the plaintiff would not allow them to stai t work. On the auooeediog day witnees met the plaintiff, who then said that he thought be would let witness pat the stuff through again. Witness accordingly made his preparations, and went to the plaintiff's place, but the plaintiff again declined to allow the work to be done. Witness reminded him of his acquiescence cf the prerious day. He eaid he remetrboied It, but In the meantime he had received Instructions fr< m " headquarters " not to allow the stuff to go throuah. Witness was of opinion that very little grain had been lost. Be did not censide- anything like £25 worth had been lost, and m any cisc the wheat would have been recovered If witness could have put it through the machine ogsln. The witness contradicted much of the evidenca of the plaintiff. Ho said that thirteen bushels waa an average yield fur plain* land. — David Thomn had visited O'Loughlan's farm with Hudson. Saw three lots of chaff. In two lots he saw soma wheat whloh should not have been ttare m the chaff The firs'; lot was th'i worst, the third lot we? fairly troll threshed Most of the wheat could be got out of the chaff by winnowing. A little w heat, makes a considerable show m a heap of chaff In the straw witness saw some blighted wheat which could not be thre3hed. Witness estimated that there might be eight, bushels m the chaff. The laud was of • patoby nature as regarded the quality of the soil. An average orop on the plains land would he 16 bushels. A portion of plaintiffs Beven<y-ac?e paddock was blighted The b'lghted hoadi would be about equal m quantity to those which were not properly threashed. [teft sttling.]