Feilding R.M. Court.

Feilding Star, Volume V, Issue 30, 13 March 1884, Page 2

Feilding R.M. Court.

Wbdnbssay, Mahch 12th, 1884. - — : (Before K. Ward, Esq., 8.M.) CIVIL CAB2B. Lewers r Hon.— Judgment summons for £13 16s Bd. Mr Prior for plaintiff. No appearance of defendant. Order given for pnyment or 13 days' imprisonment. Same v G-, Hadfield.— Judgment sum. mons for £40 12« Id. Adjourned till next Court day on application of plaintiff. Same v JnoHasse— Claim i'222» 10d? Mr Prior for plaintiff. No appearance of defendant, -judgment gireu for amount and costs. --■ - ;wr i Same v F. Cornwall.— Claim £1 5s lid. Mr Prior for plaintiff. No appearance of defendant. Judgment given for amount and costs. '"':'.' 11. A. Nixon v S. H. Russell.— C aim £9 3s. Mr Prior for plaintiff. rNoj.appearance of defendant. Judgment* for the amount and costs. D. Meighan v J. Harris. — Claim £11 19s 6d. Mr Prior for plaintifivand Mr Esam for defendant, the defence Being ' that the work for which the claim was made had not been done according to contract. : '...'•. .':. .i Daniel Meighan deposed: Resided at Saason; cut 10 cords of firewood for defendant ; then agreed for 3OJ chains rough road forming, at 13r per, chain ; defendant used it before it was finished ; no complaint was made as to the quality of the work, although defendant frequently saw it before aud after it was finished. Cross-examined: Witness admitted that in sonic places the water-tables were not according to contract. .".'•:'.'■"' Be-rxamined : The only objection dei fondant reised was that witness had refused to put in another day's work at ia low place in the road- ■ f ;■ W. A. >andilands deponed: Was a solicitor, residing in Feilding ; defendant' had spoken to him about the road; ft was to the effect that he was satisfied, only he wanted a low place filled up* which would occupy about a day. For the defence, James Harris, fori merly of Sandon, described the terms of the contract. His evidence was chiefly to the effect that the formation was all . right, while the water-tibles were not hj any means! according, to''a'greement. '''■'_' Cross - examined.: -'Witness said Tie railed plain; i'ffa attention to the def -cts of the work before it was finished. . . v "•'", lie-examined: U«ed the road a jnonllf before it was finished, but this du| no^ ' interfere with the water-tables.' ; - - By the Bench: It would take^bout^-j per chain to put'the'* water tables right :%■"'; the depth would not average. ioirtchel, instead of 18, as required by contract.- ' ! ' : " Bobert Garret deponed : He was '«*' laborer, rend rig at CftrapeHtotrri; iwaisf '- ehieflj employed at road formiiig,. jiadi^ liad large experience in such work.:. Witness described the work do^K% and ii*' defects, and said it would take per chain to put it ia order.. :i -'" '"'■. Cross • examined : The witness' sarf ' | contractors were supposed to average tlio >lepth of water counes, making theiu ' deeper from the surface in the highest j ground. • ■ • '■■':". Be-vxamincd : The work had not "ibeet^: ! finished according to contract. : -•■••■. -' | Mr Esam contended that the work had had not been completed aceor&ng-to agreement, and asked either for sj n^»u|t or for a judgment for the amount Jess,^ Talue of the uncompleted work. • .. j. Mr Prior submitted that no objection had been made about the work till t|»e, time for payment' came. He pointed ott^ several important points in the evidence from which he contended that phiintiff was entitled to a judgment in his favorr His Worship cob lidered that plaintiff; while not having done everything required by hi* agreement, was entitled to pay*' ; ment for the value of the work aetua^;..: ' done, and gave judttinent for £l6an4 costs.. . ... ."■', Halcombe and Sherwill v W. Whisker. Claim £11 12s 3d on a dishonored cheque. Mr Prior for plaintiffs, and Mr Stake for defendant. , ;■ . : ■-',;['{■.■, A seUoff had been filed to the amount of £U7ssd. Defendant deposed that plaintiff* accepted eonditioaaUranprderaji againftfc the cheque, the order being sighed byi-Mr j Wright; plaintiffa afterwards repadiatsd '. . the order ; witness produced his day book : containing certain entries of sheep skioa delivered to plaintiffs, by their order./ ; ; Cross-examined: Had some sbVp 0f..-----plamtiff's running on his land ; killed 16 of them, for which he gave 13s 9d each. Be examined;: Was not customary to .. send skins back after buying sheep to -■' kill ; there were current private aceoiinti. * betwren Mr Sherwill and defendant. ■•'• -. : " K^ H. Wright deposed tnat he gave-ai . order to defendant on plaintiff* ; witness explained how tapper and Sherwill were indebted to him for colleciionsl and in cross-examination said he gave the older on the faith that its value might be placed '" to the credit of defendant on the booki' "- Of plaintiffs. " M v 4 H. L; Sherwill deposed tnat at the '" time the order was 'brought he said he" would accept it if anything was coming to Mr Wright; said he would write to his eo-trastee and ascertain whit was due tbljfri Wrjjs£; have forgotten to do. se j : (iji^ployed Mr W right *to collect moneys in the estate of Jones; he was to have been paid a certain commission, but verj little had been collected ; if there is any responnrbility iti* notas "Halcoinbe and Sherwill;" that firm doe*n't owe any . money. to Mr Wright : was utterly sur> priiied when he found the set-off fer the ■'-<. order bad been filed in the present case^i - bare n'coiveti no aecopnt for skinn frafti 1 ' defendant till the prevent tttne ; if he h«l . :■ Rent atf account, the aoioahf for the fa ' ikins woule) |u(t». been' placed to h«K "- orngfe-V;- ■■v : " '■■■■' '• '■' .&:■ ■ ■•-■-. ■■■■'■=•/ Wr Jackson deposed as to fheep Ming bought by :Mr 'Sherwili a|^ Stevens and Grorton'B sale, and witoesg drojre tlxem oa - '-.;. ..■■.. . .■■. ... ... ... / ; -.- - ..; ■'■'■ i ■ ,'

to defendant's land, as had been arranged; defendant killed 17, and' returned 16 skint; plaintiffs were not buying skins of defendant, and he had no right to charge for them; witness was told to charge 13a 9d each for the sheep killed. Mr Staite applied for a nonsuit on the gr und that plaintiffs had sued on one part of a de*»t only, which, wm contrary to the Act Mr Prior said that it had been frequently decided in that Court that cheques, promissory notes, :&c, could be sued for 4s separate claims, | which, he considered, did away with the plea of division of course of action as the ground for a nonsuit. He also cited authority to show that items of set-off should be the next nearest a> to date to those against which 'tWr were put in. He thoroughly sifted the evidence on both sides, and submitted that plaintiffs were entitled to a verdict. His Worship laid he inferred from the evidence of Messrs Snerwill and Jackson that defendant had a right to claim for the 49 skins, which item. £4 Ss 9d, must be allowed. He considered that the amount of Mr Wright's order, £7 is Bd, was fair and just, and must also be allowed. He would therefore give j udgment for the difference, viz., 4s 10d, with costs in proportion to that amount. W.L. Bailey and others v Alexander Bell.— Mr Prior for plaintiffs, and Mr Esam for defendant. This was an application for the re-hearing of a case adjudicated upon in the Court a short time ago, and in which judgment was given tor the recovery by the plaintiffs of certain engine wheels, &c, from the defendant, and which order it was contended had not been carried out in its entirety. ,„_... Both counsel addressed the Court at considerable length in support of each side respectively. The principal points involved were certain technicalities as to what constituted the integral, and which separate parts of an engiue carriage, and were consequently included in the order already given by the Court, Mr Ksam contending that certain portions of the carriage were not included, and Mr Prior that they were, and therefore ought to be given up. He submitted that no sufficient ground had been brought forward for disturbing the judgment of the Court, and he begged that it might stand. His Worship, after hearing the arguments of counsel, thought that the value of the articles to be returned ought to have been determined, and that certain parts ot the carriage disputed were included in the order given. He thought that as the parties could not agree, the only just plan would be to grant a rehearing of the whole case de notto. .He would therefore granf a re hearing at the next fitting of the « ourt, and he would reserve hi* decision as to the casts of the present action. Levers v Morris.— Claim £23 ll» 8d Mr Prior" for plaintiff, and Mr W. B Hawkins for drirtidnnt. The defencwas that certain amounts paid had not be»n credited, and that *omc item^ credited in one place had been debited in other*, while some items paid hail been charged for ajjainJ. &»al, assistant of plaintiff. Rave evidence, but could not swear whether a certain promissory note had not been paid. j. Morris, defendant, deposed as to pajing plaintiff £10 19s 2.1, one of the items in the claim, to plaintiff himself, in the p'reseriee of Mr Tajlor, witness' wife being also present; it was paid over the counter on the right hand side of the. shop; did not get a receipt a« plaintiff •aid it was not neceisary till the whole amount was paid ; the sum of £2 1« was afterwards paid by Mr Dear to plaintiff on behalf of defendant. At this juncture it wss deemed necesgary. to have the evidence of plaintiff, and »Uo that of defendant's wife, neither of whom were present, and it was agreed to remand the ease till next Court day. The Court then adjourned.