SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3714, 18 January 1875, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS, Monday, January 18. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Chapman and a Special Jury.) Robinson v. Macgregor.— This was an action brought by one William Robinson, of Invercargill, against Neil Joseph Bruce Macgregor, of Silverstrearn, to recover damages to the extent of L.3,000 for alleged breach of agreement. Mr Barton appeared for plaintiff ; Mr Macassey, with him Mr G. Cook, for defendant, who pleaded a denial of the allegations of plaintiff. Mr Barton opened the case, stating that on an occasion plaintiff and defendant happened to meet, and in the course of conversation defendant remarked that he had 1,000 or 1,500 head of cattle on his run, which he would like to get rid of. Plaintiff offered to clear the run of the cattle, and an agreement was entered into between him and defendant and a memorandum to the following effect signed Plaintiff undertook to clear the pan of all the cattl» on Mount Allan and Powders Hills either by shooting or driving them to sale ; the’ proceeds of those that were sold and of the sale of the hides of those shot to be equally divided between plaintiff ami defendant—two thirds of the accumulating proceeds to remain in the auctioneer’s hands till the run was cleared ; one third to be deposited in a bank, to be drawn on by plaintiff for expenses. The cattle to be all cleared oft within six mouths. The learned counsel stated that plaintiff commenced to can-y ®ut the terms of the agreement, but defendant hindered and prevented him from doing so, and also caused certain cattle to be driven off and sold through another agent. Defendant also refused to deposit a third of the proceeds of these cattle in the bank. Plaintiff, therefore, was compelled to throw up the broken agreement and sue the defendant for half tho amount the number of cattle on the run might bo estimated to bring in—which half plaintiff estimated at L 3.000.

William Robinson, plaintiff, stated that be had usually been engaged in station matters. In September, 187-1, witness was out at defendant’s place, and after some conversation ahou; the high price of cattle the latter said ho had a large number of cattle at bis run, No. 39. Witness said he believed so, and that they were very wifi, not having been mustered for two or three years—adding “ now would be the time to take them off the run and sell them. ” Witness offered to do this for 30s per head, but defendant hesitated, and then said, “ I’ll give you half the cattle on my inn if you will clear them all off. ” Witness agreed to do so, and then defendant caul there were some strange cattle on the run, which witness could imi ound, as ho wanted every hoof of them cleared oil', and that if they Were claimed witness could put so much a head on them. Defendant said that lie thought the strange cattle would be running “this side if the Powders,” a range of hills on the run. D t C fondant said there should bo from 1,000 to 1,500 cattle on the i un, as the last time he had men out mustering (about five years before) they had about 500 or GOO in a mob, and these they got within a mile or so of his house. Through, ie'wfcvbr, eujnb jnwapmagtwteijt oil tfcb

part the cattle broke away, and only a few were 1 got into the paddocks. These men told defendant at the same time that they thought there were 1,000 head on the run. That was all that | was then said, witness remarking that he had to ! go south, and that when he returned he i would enter into the agreement with de- j feudant. The agreement produced is the ' one entered intcftlbetween them on his return, j and it is signed by both witness and defendant. Defendant read it through twice before signing it, and his daughter also read it to him. Messrs Gcllib.aml and Co.’s run is on one side of defendant’s run, and Captain Boyd’s on the other. Defendant asked how witness intended to start working the cattle, to which witness replied that he would commence at Mount Allan and the Peaks and work downwards, keeping the cattle two or three w. eks, till they got a little quiet. Defendant said the cattle at Mount Allan were very wild, avid that witness had better bring each mob away as he got them. Witness replied that that plan would not do, as cattle were very much quieter when in large mobs. Witness bad been over the run with defendant’s son before the agreement was , signed, and then made a rough estimate, from counting several mobs, that there were fully 1,500 cattle on it. Witness started to work, but had to discontinue, owing to bad weather. He had engaged two men to assist him, but afterwards made arrangements with another person to go in with him. When the weather cleared up, witness rounded up a mob of cattle at Mount Allan, which he drove down towards the Powders. Some of them were very wild, and broke away, but next day he worked them about, together with some others he had collected. Witness went to the North Taieri and to town to see the gentleman who was to go in with him, but could not find him, so he returned to the run. On his way he noticed some cattle in the paddocks by defendant’s homestead. He saw defendant’s son, and, in consequence of what he heard, kept a look-out to see what defendant was going to do with these cattle. Witness went out after more cattle, and came in on the 26th October, by way of Mullocky Gully, The cattle were still in defendant’s paddocks. Witness came into town next day and went to the Kaikorai sale-yards, and there saw the same cattle. There were several of them that witness had seen at the Powders and in defendant’s paddock. Cousennently, the day following, after the sale of these cattle, he went to Mr Stephenson, the auctioneer, and showed him the agreement between himself and defendant. Witness did not obtain any money from Stephenson’s firm, nor did they give him any undertaking to hold two-thirds of the sum realised by the sale. Witness saw defendant on the 30th coming out of Court’s Hotel, and asked how it was he had been mustering and selling cattle off his run. He. said it was a lie, using a strong expression ; that he had never taken any cattle off his run, and that he. would not speak to witness any more. He then turned his back and walked away. Witness followed him for a few yards, and said he had taken cattle off the run, and that some of them he had sold at the Kaikorai yards the day previous ; also, that he (witness) would claim half the proceeds. Witness again went to Wright, Stephenson, and Co., and saw Mr Wright, making a demand on him, but getting nothing. Through defendant’s removing the cattle that witness had brought to the Powders it was rendered impossible for witness to complete the agreement; for these cattle had become quiet, and would have been used by him as “coaches” to bring in the other cattle on the run with. Witness would have had to buy other quiet cattle in their place. Witness was always anxious to carry out the agreement, as it was a rather profitable transaction for him. He calculated that the cattle on the run would be worth about L 4 per head, and that his expenses ior the six months would amount to about L2OO If defendant had not interfered with witness, he believed he would have cleared ttie run within the specified time. There weie thirty two head sold at the Kaikorai sale, and these realised LllO gross—Llo4 10s net, or L 3 os each. Ibis was not including calves, of which there five at the sale. Cross-examined : I have been accustomed to station woik for about ten years. I have owned race horses and had them broken in for me, but, may not be described its a jockey. I know Mr Taggart, •and I also knovv one Mears, who I believe is a horse-breaker. I did not tell defendant or any one at his farm that I had four horses at Mr Larnach’s farm, but I said four weie comin" up to me from Southland. None of them arrived on the run. One of the two men I engaged came to the run, and helped me the first day, but then a snowstorm came on and we could do nothing for three weeks. During this time I was in town and saw Taggart about buying a horse for my use while stock-riding. I did not tell him I han the contract with defendant and was stuck for a horse; nor that if he would let me have one I would soon pay for it out of the contract money. I did not choose or select a horse, but said I preferred the look of one. I did not offer to buy this horse. The difficulty between myself and Taggart was not that I had no money to pay for the horse with. 1 had two or three horses in my possession at the time. I suppose it’s my business where they were. I had two at Invercargill, and a man named Clarke brought them up. They were not race horses, and I rode one of them several times on defendant’s run, I also made use of a horse belonging to defendant’s son. I did not have a horse from Mr Scott on trial, but simply hired one to go Meadowbank with. I first went out on the run on the 20th with Clarke to show him the boundaries, and the next day the snowstorm fell. I was practically hindered from working for three weeks. I went out once with defendant’s son and shot a bull, defendant s son fired at it, and a man named Webb also fired at it; then the bull charged Webb and knocked him over. That is the only animal that was «hot. I was on the run four different times after the snow cleared away, but had no assistance, as I did not then require it. I had a rifle of my own at Mosgiel. [Left sitting.]