DISTRICT COURT, CLYDE.

Dunstan Times, Issue 747, 11 August 1876, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT, CLYDE.

Tuesday, August Bth, 1876. (Before His Honor George William Harvey, Judge.) .1. C. Chappie v. Robert and Peter Jenkins. Claim—L.6o, for breach of contract. Plaintiff conducted his own case. F. J. Wilson appeared for the defendants. Mr Chappie, who described himself as auctioneer, commission agent, and farmer, deposed, that on the 3rd of March last he spoke to the defendrnt Robert about thrashing his (plaintiff's) crops of oats at Tiger Hill and Blacks with a machine, but that on that day no arrangement was made. On the 24th of March he again saw the defendant Robert, and it was then arranged that the defendants would thresh the crops and that they would be on the ground with the machine in ten days, perhaps in a week and further, that the plaintiff’s oats would be threshed first. Plaintiff then deposed that the defendants did 'not come to him as promised, but took their machine to a farmer named Spain, that whilst there the machine was broken, and that they did not come to him till the middle of May, and that through the delay he had suffered the damage now sued for In cross-examination the Plaintiff said no one was present bub the defendant Robert and himself when the arrangement was entered into. Four witnesses were examined in proof of damage. R'bert Jenkins, blacksmith and farmer, deposed—That he remembered the Plaintiff coming to him and speaking about thresh- • ing his crops, but that ho entered into no no agreement to do so ; he told Plaintiff that it was arranged for the machine to thresh Spain's crop, and that he, Plaintiff, could go to Spain’s when the machine was there, and that it he arranged with his brother Peter, it would be a'l right. Thomas Spain, farmer, swore that defendants had agreed on the 31st day of January, to thresh his crops first. Robert Hislop, blacksmith in the employ •of defendants, deposed—l remember the plaintiff coming to the blacksmith’s shop and speaking to Robert Jenkins about the threshing machine. Robert Jenkins said the raaohice was going to Spain’s first, and that the plaintiff could see his brother there and agree with him. Both plaintiff and defendant then went away. His Honor in summing up, said the evidence was very conflicting. It was a maxim in law, when, as in a case like this the parties to the suit were of equal standing in society, that the benefit of any doubt should be given to the defendant. The verdict therefore would be for the defendants, with costs, L 8 4s.