RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, ALEXANDRA.

Dunstan Times, Issue 940, 23 April 1880, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, ALEXANDRA.

Monday, lOr n Artur.. (Before Jackson Keddcll, Esq., R M.) J C. Chippie v. Jeremiah Druramy.— Tins was an action for LIOO on three 'saints. Ist, For LoS damages caused by tiie detention of a threshing machine 13 months, voluntarily b irrowed and taken away by defendant ; L3'2, the value of two marcs starved when in defendant's charge for service ; LlO, for the use of a pony for eight months.

Mr F, J. Wilson appeared for plaintiff, a id Mr Turton for defendant.

Plaintiff depose 1 : Am a farmer residing at Tiger Hill. In February, 1 STS, whilst, reaping my crop I promised to lend defendant the machine Defendant had one of his horses in the machine to see if it would work quietly. On finishing my crop I pulled machine to pieces and helped load it on defendants dray. The machine was a Kobinson’s self side-delivery. On the 4th October I asked defendant to return the machine. In November I again asked him. Ho said ho would do so immediately on returning home. In February, 1879, I saw a part of the machine at my farm ; it was generally out ot order and thoroughly useless. When taken away it was perfect and in good working order. Cross-examined : I wrote to defendant telling him of the state of the machine, and that 1 would hold him responsible for all damage sustained. A deal of correspondence passed, in which defendant said he was willing to pay for of machine and the hire of a machine for cutting my crop. On sending him the account for the the hire of a machine, he replied to the effect that he would give me the honour to settle my own bills, and that when contract No. 62 was finished there would be nothing between us. In January, 1880, as I could see that defendant would not put machine into order, I set men on to repair it. It originally cost me L 62, and it has not reaped in all 400 acres. I paid for reaping my crop in 1879 Ll4. The two mares when I delivered them to defendant were iu good condition, and when they were returned they were very poor, and thoOgh 1 took every care of them they died. One was 14 pears old, the other I don’t know. I used to work one, the other I kept simply for breeding—she did not throw a foal the two previous seasons. One had a foal at foot when she went to defendant. A mare is Improved rather than otherwise by a foal suckling. I paid L 7 for one anl LI2 for the other. The LlO demand is for the use of apoaey mare, defendant borrowel and never returned, and it was cot till the lapse of S months that I found her..

A number of witnesses for the plaintiff were examined, who all gave corroborative evidence.

Jeremiah DrUmmy, iu defence maintained that plantiff voluntarily offered him the use of tho reaping machine, and that it was not in working order when he got it, and that when he returned it, it was with tho exception of a bolt in as good condition as when ho got it.

J. Butler, as an expert, stated that the machine was old fashioned and cumbrous and liable to get out of order. Witnesses for the defence agreed that the machine was not in good order, and that

though defendant had ho great amount of feed iu his paddocks, hsed to turn out all in ires on to the adjoining run. Judgement reserved.

CLYDE. Thursday, Aprl 22ud. (Before Major Kcddell, R.M.)

Catherine Mellor.—Application for traus fer of Hotel License, Tinkers gully G ranted. Catherine Mellor.—Application for renewal of Billiard License.—Granted. B. Naylor v. G. Smith.—Judgment suramoms. Defendant paid L 4 into Court, and offered to pay the balance by weekly instalments of 5s Agree 1 Id. J. Duncan (Creditors’ Trustee in the estate of W. A. Young, Palmerston) v. George Cameron.—Claim L 23 15s. Evidence as given by the plaintiff and witnesses at Palmerston was read. Mr P. J. Wilson appeared for the Plaintiff, anil Mr Turton, for defendant. This was an action for value of flour supplied to William Beattie, but afterwards taken over by the defendant, who had purchased the business of the said William Beattie.

Defendant admitted the receipt of the flour, and argued as against payment of the same that the flour was of inferior quality, and could not be worke I into bread, and that notice had been given to the plaintiff, and requesting him to take the flour away.

Judgment was reserved. Sorley v. Cox.—Claim LlO. Defendant paid L 3 7s. 6d. into Court. Judgment was given for plaintiff.