Feilding R.M. Court.

Feilding Star, Volume IV, Issue 49, 27 September 1883, Page 2

Feilding R.M. Court.

♦ — -• Wednesday, Sept. 26th, 1883. (Before \\. Ward, Esq.. R.M.) CIVIL CASES Norman v, Doreen.— Judgment summons for £8 18s. Mr Prior for plaintiff. It was stated that defendant had filed. Case withdrawn. Lash v. Goldsmith.— Claim for £1 13s [ lid. Judgment for amount and costs. j Lewers v. Kenny. — Claim for £6 19s 2d. Judgment for amount and costs. Lewers v. Hammond. — Claim for £10 ls sd. Defendant disputed some of the items. An open judgment was given, to permit arrangements to be made. Holland v. Pickersgill.— Claim for £1 8s 6d. Verdict for plaintiff and costs. Capper and Sherwill, trustees in Jones' estate, v. Thomas Thompson. — Claim for 15s Bd. Nonsuited, with costs for defendant. Lash v. Mitchell. Claim for £1 for timber. Judgment for the amount and costs. Hnlcombe & Sherwill v. G. A. Jackson. Claim for £49 19s 9d. Mr Baker, of; Messrs Hankins and Baker, appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr Esam for the defendant who had filed a set-off. W. Jackson, managing clerk of tho plaintiffs, gave evidence as to the dates thai certain promissory notes were giveu and renewed, and explained some of the items disputed. Several of his explanations were admitted by defendant's solicitor, certain items in tlie set-off being also admitted by the solicitor for plaintiffs. The defendant deposed that plaintiffs had rented 20 acres of land of him at Bunnythorpe, for a certain term, and left stock on the place after the expiration of the same. The amount of rent for the extra time coustituted the set-off. i ross-examined : He asked Mr Jackson, the manager, about a month afterwards if they wanted the paddock any longer, and the answer was they had no further use for it. Reexamined : He made no use of the paddock while occupied by plaintiffs. W. JiicTcson, recalled, deposed as to the dates when the cattle were taken off the land. No arrangement was made for the three or four days the stock were on the ground after the term agreed upon. The cattle were left because they were nearly dead, and could not be got off. Several were actually dead. Cross-examined : It was the fault of defendant's paddock that the cattle were in such a helpless condition. The state the paddock was in was the reason given why it would not be required any longer. H. L. Sherwill deposed, his assistant had done quite right in intimating to defendant that the paddock would not be required any longer. Cross-examined: He (Mr Sherwill) did not himself tell the defendant he should not require the paddock any longer. The cattle were left on the ground three or four days after the time as a matter of convenience. Did not object to pay for that time, but did for as many months. Judgement was given for £34 ls and costs. Mr Sherwill declined to claim his own personal expenses. McGregor v. T. Sexton. — Claim £5. Mr Baker for plaintiff, and Mr Prior for defendant, who had paid into court £2 10s 6d and costs 10s. Plaintiff 'gave evidence as to having worked at bush felling for defendant at 8s per per day. Defendant had disputed the quantity and quality of the work done and had offered him 6s per day. The defence was thit McGregor and another were not experienced bushmen and agreed to work for defendant, and receive fair wages according to the value of their work. T. Sexton deposed: He met Mr McGregor and his mate, and asked them if they were good bushmen. McGregor said they were not. i old him he could give Is an hour to good hands, but if they liked to come, he was willing lo pay them what they wereworlh. They agreed, and went to work, and after a time claimed 8s per day. Told them they had not earned this or anything like it. bnt 6s a day was all tbey were worth, and this amount he offered to pay, and was still willing to do so. Cross-examined: There were other men on the job, and he could not tell the amount of work each man had done, but the amount could be fairly judged. Plaintiff had himself acknowledged he was not a competent bushmen. Edward Sexton, son of defendant, corroborated his father's evidence. David Prince gave evidence as to the incompetency of plaintiff and his mate for the work, judging chiefly from the appearance of tbe work when done. Another claim against the defendant, viz., L. Stewart v Sexton for £6 ls 6d, this being conuecf^d with tbe previous case, wa^now beard. In tbis case £3 lis Id and costs 12s had been paid into Court. Plaintiff gave similar evidence to tbat of McGregor. Had never felled bush before. Defendant said he would pay him ls an hour. T. Stewart corroborated, as did also F. Stewart, sen., the latter adding that plaintiffs were to be charged 10s per week for " grub." The counsel on both sides having addressed the Court, his Worship said the evidence was of' a somewhat conflicting character. ■** till he thought the claim in each case was fair and reasonable, and gave judgement, for the amounts respectively and costs; deducting what had beou paid into Court. . Halcombe and Sherwill v. Smart, Bros. Mr Perkins for plaintiffs, and Mr Esam for defendants. ' This was a*, claim for : alleged damaged wheat, the case having already been brought before the court, and a new hearing having been ordered by the Supreme Court. The amount

claimed was £95 12s. His Worship' proposed to go on with the case till the evening, and resume it at 10' o'clock this morning, if that would meet the convenience of the parties and their respective counsel. This having been consented to Mr Perkins opened the case for tbe plaintiffs, and called Wilfred Jackson, who deposed as follows • He was clerk for the plaintiffs. i The wheat was delivered in April, 1882. I there were 246 bags; two drays were employed, which brought 30 to 40 bags each load ; was there when the first bags were brought; examined one or two bags; inspected three or four deliveries, but not every one. What he saw was up to sample. The two defendants were present when the wheat was brought. Smart ' required fresh bags which were supplied him. Examined five or six bags altogether. Mr Jensen came to look at the wheat, but saw none that was bad ; it was the same that witness had seen. Afterwards went to Palmerston and found some of the wheat was bad. This was in bags he had supplied. 149 at Palmerston were bad and 38 at Feilding. The store of plaintiffs is goo i, with iron roof. The wheat was stored down stairs in heaps' of 12 sacks each, and was not damaged oa the premises. The wheat had, some time I previously, been wet and had started to grow. If they had told him it was m this state he would not bave taken its delivery. The sound wheat was very good, and the damaged very bid-indeed." Should say it had got wet in the stooks; Where the wheat was bad at all, the whole bag was so, and the same was true of the good samples. Wrote immediately to the defendunts and told them, when he fouud that some of the wheat waa bad. Cross examined : Witness explained. that the 30 to 40 bags was in eacb delivery of two loads, and not in each load. . Did not sample one or two bags on eacb day of delivery. He made bis own selection of tbe bags examined. The wheat remained as stacked until sold to Richtcr, Nannestead, and Co. Do not keep a number of green hides or tallow in the same store as /the wheat is kept. Have bad some experience in wheat sampling, and can tell something of its value by thrusting the hand into it. Wheat well harvested will not go bad in tbe bags if properly kept. Did not know till afterwards tbat the wheat that went to Palmerston was bad. Had some wheat from Messrs Hammond about tbe same time, but this did not get mixed with defendants' wheat. J. T. Smart, one of the defendants, examined by plaintiffs' counsel, deposed as to tbe sale of a certain quantity of wheat to plaintiffs. It was red chaff wheat of fir*t rate quality. Sold Mr Turn bull 1,000 bushels of tbe same kind about a week before. Got 3s 9d a bushel for it. Hod then about 1,500 bushels. Sold plaintiffs 1,000. Mr Bnrcbara 300, Mr W. Taylor 10, Mr G. Wheeler 2, and kept the rest for themselves; all the wheat sold was of the same quality: when Burcham examined the wheat he did not complain of it ; the stacks were well built, and tbe wheat could not have been injured in the stack unless it had rained very bard ; did not see the wheat at Bun-ham's after delivery ; after delivery to Turnbull 20 bags, tied up, were left, and these were sent to plaintiffs; have none of that seasons wheat left; the wheat delivered to plaintiffs was not like the bad sample produced at the last trial; if the wheat had been injured, it would have looked lifc-f* it; injured wheat would not be improved by being turned over in the granary ; it could not have looked well some time afterwards if injured in the harvesting. By Mr Esam : Came with eacb two loads ; Mr Jackson took delivery of aU the lots but one ; he opened two or three bags of each load ; he looked at two or three lots each day, and at any bag he chose. Geoi ge Oliver deposed : He was a settler of Feilding. Was stacking corn for Mr Dear at the harvest of 1882-. Smart,. Brothers were harvesting at tbe same time, close to the spot. They got theirs in before Dear. One of Smart's stacks fell over and was left in the rain. Paring ihe time tbey and witness were harvesting, there was rain on several days. None of Mr Dear s corn was injured. By Mr Esam : Dont know that Dear had 25 acres after Smarts had done. Think it was the smallest stack that fell over. Can't say if the rainy days were after Smarts had done. George Dear gavo similar evidence. By Vl r Esam: Witness believed the stack blown over was spring wheat! It is possible for tbe best of wheat to deteriorate in quality if kept in bags stacked in tiers for three or four months together without shifting. It is aR the better for being jhifted occasionally. If wheat had been damaged in the harvesting in 1882 the damage would show .itself in April following. Know the plaintiff's store, and don't think wheat could receive damage there. If shown to me that the wheat was bad, shonld say it had received the injury before going into bags. Good 4 wheat should not go black and unfit for m use affer being stored three or four months. Don't think wheat would go bad in plaintiff's store in three months if good when taken there. Fritz Jenssen, of Palmerston, deposed : Bought some of Smarts' wheat off plaintiffs. The sample first sent was very good, 'but the bulk* consisting of 149 bags, was bad, Lookifag at it casually it 'appeared good, but on handling it. it proved to be bad, and unfit for milling. Witness took' it that it had been dam- . aged in the stacks, and that it could not hare been so injured in tbe bags. Didn't believe Lit could have got . . mi meed . in SlaintifFs stores. ... Witness [had, wheat in is mill which had been stored in bags in tiers for a year, and it was perfectly good. If defendants wheat had been exposed to> the rain id bag^ it could not

have been in the state it was if good when ■ bagged. There would be no need to open it, as the outside of the bags would be black and mouldy. Defendant's wheat must bave been bad when put into the bags. Value of defendant's wheat when bought by plaintiffs was about 2s 9d per bushel. Cross-examined: The wheat could have been ground into flour, but it would have only been fit for pig's food. Made pig's food of the whole of defendant'? V- heat bought from plaintiffs; it would not have made flour fit for bread under any circumstances ; our miller positively refused to -use itG. M. Snelsnn deposed : Am an auctioneer practising ia Palmerston; am in the habit of buying and selling wheat ; damaged wheat last year was worth about 2s 9d per bushel, and would only be sold for pigs or fowls ; it could not be possibly be sold for grinding into flour for bread . [The case was continued throughout to-day, and was not concluded when we went to press.]