ROBERTSON v. CAMPBELL & LOW.

Dunstan Times, Issue 383, 20 August 1869, Page 3

ROBERTSON v. CAMPBELL & LOW.

(TO THE EDITOR OF THE DUXSTAN TIMES) Sir,—At the sitting of the District Court held at Clyde on the 17th May last, judgment was given in a case, that at the time was not considered (let the decision of the Ju’ge be what it would) to affect any, but the parties interested, since then however a great deal of discussion has hinged on the subject, hence, with the view of setting all parties right, I send you the evidence of the various witnesses, also the arguments, and trust you will find a corner in your valuable paper for its insertion, —D. Robertson v. Campbell and Low. This was an action to recover the sum of £IOO for goods sold and delivered, the same being re ’nee i from £lOl 15s. fid. to bring it within the jurisdiction of the Court; the defendant put in a sst off of £IOO, for sheep supplied and grazing sixty head of cattle on defendants run from Ist January, 18G8, to Ist January, 1860, being reduced from £lO7, and claimed to recover the excess ; the whole of the set off was admitted with the exception of £"■>, that being a portion of the £6O charged for grazing cattle on defendants’ inn. Mr. Low gave evi ence to the effect, that the p'ronliff was once in his employ asshephevd end that he bad allowed him to graze cattle on l>is inn, and charged him ten shillings pe : year each for the same, but gave plain'll ff verbal notice that he would have to pay twenty shillings per year per head for the future ; could not be posilive whether I have received a payment of the lesser sum from Plaintiff since I gave him notice that he must pay twenty shillings per hea 1. Receipt from Campbell and Low to Robertson put into Mr. Low’s band, who said he recognised it, wa in Ins hand writing ; knew the item (Ist Jammy lS(it>—To year’s rent for house and grazing of cattle on run to this date per agreement, £26.); believe that to be the mount plaintiff has always paid for grazing his cattle on run up to that date.

Bohertson for the defence, said, he had made an agreement with Mr. Low to graze cattle on his run, the price to be paid was ten shillings per hea 1 per year, but on the 9th January 1867, Mr. Low told him that for the future he must pay twenty shillings per head per year, told him I would do nothing of the sort, have paid Mr. Low a year’s rent since that time at ten sh’llings per hear 1 , receipt produced; there was nothing said about twenty shillings per head at this time ; the next time I heard about the twenty shillings per head was, when I presented my bill to Mr. Low; have paid rent to Mr. I.ow for graying cattle for the last five years. The argument for the plaintiff was, that he had agreed with the defendants to graze cattle on their run, and was to pay ten shillings per heal per year for the same, and that he had done so for Ihe last five years for wlrcli he hel I receipts, and since the tone Mr, Low told him would have to pay twenty shillings instead of ten. had made a payment to Mr. Low of the lesser turn, receipt produced, which stated it was paid under an agreement, and that the charge of twenty shillings per head per year was exorbitant, and claimed to pay the lesser sum, ten shillings only. For the defence it was argued that defendants were entitled to recover the full amount charged for the item, grazing cattle £6O ; as it was not denied by the plaintiff that defendants at some time gave him notice that be would he charged the twenty shillings per head, and if defendants did only charge the leaser sum since the said notice, it did not debar them from charging it now, and hoped his Honor would allow the item as it stood.

His Honor, in summing up, said that, as the plaintiff admitted that the defendant gave him verbal notice that if he (pla’ itiff) continued to grass cattle on defendants run he would bo charged 20s. per bead per yea- 1 , it was no answer to say, hec use he had paid the lesser sum since said notice, the defendant should he debarred from charging the 20s. now. Whether the charge of 20s. w»s an exorbitant one or not the Court had nothing whatever to do with it The sum to remain as charged in the set off, namely, £OO.

I ara, i'c,, PEACEMAKER A 'exond'M, Aiig.l 118. )Gj9.