MAGISTERIAL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1517, 26 March 1887, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

ABHBURTON— FRIDAY.

(Before Mr H. O. 8. Baddeley KM.) The following oases were heard after we went to press yesterday:—

CIVIL OASES

Rule v. Sprott Bros., claim £40 —Mr Purnell for plaintiff; Mr. Wilding for defendants, In this case it was Bought to be shown on behalf of the plaintiff that he leased part of Mr G. Roberta' S )!m« eaUte In May. In July, In consequence of what he had been told he went on to the land m question and found that the defendant! had practically taken possession of two of a lot of three paddocks rented by him. The defendants had a camp m one of the paddooka, and had a quantity of stuff strewed around. They were ploughing some of their own land whioh adjoined. They had depastured a number of horses on plaintiff's paddocks. Plaintiff alleged he gave the defendants notioa to leave the plaoo, but they failed to do ao, Subsequently saw ono of the defendants and told him ho would have to leave the ground, but it wan some time afterwards before the defendants want away. They occupied the placi six weeks, and plaintiff alleged that besides totally losing the feed of one paddock fjr 4 months, he waß put to very much inconvenience, and had to employ an extra man because the defendants left the g%tes open and plaintiff's sheep thus got out of the paddocks m whioh they were < nolosed. The plaintiff also alleged that the paddock m whioh the defendants oamped hid been very much oat up by tho passage to and fro of drays with hesvy It a Ib, whereby he was occasioned much loss and Inconvenience. W. H. Rule, Robert Gunn, W. Thomas, G. Roberts, and F. Bennlson having given ovideoce for the plaintiff, the oiise was adjourned for a week. Rule v. Sprott, claim £20. — Mr. Purnell for plaintiff; Mr Wilding for defendant.— O»se adjourned for a week. Foster v. Dynes, claim £6 10a.— Oase adjourned for a week. O'Lnnghlan v Hudson, claim £90 — Mr Wilding for plaintiff, Mr Purnell for defendant. — In this osbo the plaintiff, a farmer, residing at WaUanul, alleged that through negligence and bad workmanship on the part of the defendant, a threshing machine proprietor, tfe had lost 600 bushels of wheat. — The evidence had been taken on a pieviouu Omirt day, when the Magistrate reserved his decision m order to consider certain points whioh had been railed. He now gave jidgraent as follow*:—This Is an aotion to recover the ■urn of £00, damages for alleeod negligent threshing of wheat. The erldence showß that the defendant entered into a oontraoc to thfeth the plaintiff's wheat, and of eoutte that implies that the woik was to be properly done. Tbero ovnnot be a shadow of a doubt that the contract was not properly carried out. It h*« boon ■oogbt to throw the blame of this to •ome extent on the plaintiff himself, because defendant made certain offer* and the plaintiff ehonld have overlooked the work and, if not satisfied, have stopped It. With regard to the (ffjra. I o insider they did not go far enough, Balides refreshing there should have been an offjr of compensation for any lons sustained ; moreover, tho plaint ff was not bound to allow the work to bo done m the way proposed ; tho defendant should have performed tho contract properly. I oan quite ace that it wo&ld be a convenient thing for a farmer to overlook the work, but surely this Is not compulsory, for the farmer pays to hava his work properly dote and the machine proprietor caonot get rid of his responsibilities. The contention that the lobb to the machine proprietor through havicg to do the work again is sufficient puniehment is not to he considered as he alone li to blame. The def< ndant acknowledges that the work was improperly done, aid I have now only to assess the damiges, which, after going very carefully into the evidence, I do at £40, nnd costsALLEGED INDBOfNCY. James Bartlett and Mary Cunningham were oharged with drunkenness and wih having committed a grossly indeaent not m a public place. Both accused pleaded guilty to the charge of drunkenness, but with regard to the latter case denied all knowledge of it. Tho offenoe was alleged to bave occurred at Frledlan^er's corner shortly after 11 a.m. on Thursday, but none of the witnesses could a wear positively to any act of indecency having been committed m the street, though there was abundant -proof of very giOB3 indecency bavisg b?en committed m the cab In which the accused after their arrest for drnnkennenß were being conveyed to the lock-up This caie therefore fell through. A farther obarge of disorderly conduct was preferred against the accused and admitted. The female is an old offender, having upwards of 70 convictions recorded against her ; the man, who la a laborer, has also previously served terms of imprisonment On the charges whioh had been provod eaoh of the prisoners were teatenoed to two calendar months' Imprisonment. The Court then rove,