Feilding R.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume V, Issue 72, 29 May 1884, Page 2

Feilding R.M. Court

Wednesday, Mat 29th. (Before R. Ward, Esq., R.M.) CIVIL CASEB. D. K. Lewers v H. W. Ellerm.— Claim £7 17s lOd for goods sold and delivered. Mr Prior appeared for plaintiff. No appearance of detendant. Judgment was given t for amount and costs. Gagern v Lightbourne. — The plaintiff xwas nonsuited with costs. * Bryce v Glacken.— Claim .£8 16s. This was a case adjourned from last court day for further evidence. Mr Prior appeared for plaintiff. The claim had arisen out of an agreement between the two parties to supply each other with certain goods. F. Bryce deposed : Defendant came to his place at Kiwitea, and asked to be supplied with meat ; agreed to do so, and defendant was to supply him with butter; defendant delivered some butter, and then left off doing so; never refnsed to take the buttsr.;By defendant : Never remembered saying he didn't want any more butter; never asked him to supply the butter at all, it was his own offer. ■ D. Glacken, defendant, deposed as to plaintiff saying he could^not take money, but would take butter ; agreed to supply him at Is per pound all the year round ; never refused to supply it, and was quite willing to carry out the agreement ; was told by Mr liaing not to deliver any more. ■■■-* By Mr Prior : Kept on taking meat as he didn't know when plaintiff might begin to take butter again ; had received the meat, and had not paid for it in butter or money ; never complained to plaintiff about butter not ; being taken. j His Worship, after asking defendant a few questions, gave judgment for plaintiff and costs. _. J. Jensen v A. Christensen.— Claim 7s 6d for shoeing a horse. Mr Prior for plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff and costs. Hammond and Wildbore v Thomas Smith. — Claim £12 10s for work done. Mr Prior for plaintiffs and Mr Goodbehere for defendant. The claim arose out of an alleged contract for road forming. The defence was that there was no contract entered into by the parties. Wm. Hammond deposed that the plaintiffs and T. A. Price had previously done similar work to that in question for defendant on Perry's line, and divided the money according to the time each man had worked \ defendant spoke to them about . some further work ; they told him the price wasn't sufficient ; he Baid he couldn't give any more, and they agreed to do it at 20s per chain ; Price went on with the work for 14 hours, and never came near it again ; defendant -Came and said it would be all right if the other two finished the work, which they did. At this juncture his Worship thought the name of Price should have been joined to that of the plaintiffs, as it appeared his part in the contract had not been interfered with, so far as the defendant was concerned, and he then ruled accordingly, Jionsuitingihe plaintiffs, with costs for defendant?! M. K. Samuel v Titcombe.— J-udg- ;- summons for £8 18s. Mr Prior^ for plaintiff. Defendant made a rambling statement, and some excuses for not attending when the case was heard. Claim ordered to be paid at £1 per month, in default 8 days' imprisonment. OBOONAIt CASES. Robert Belfit pleaded guilty to having, on the 17th ol May, used threatening behaviour towards John Lines. Mr W. B. Hawkins for defendant. The defence was, provocation and nonintention to do harm. Defendant sworn* gave evidence as to his being engaged in a fight on Manchester square with Lines. John Lines was then called, and charged with a breach of the peace by using insulting language towards Bobert Belfit.. Defendant pleaded guilty, and each party was fined 10s and costs. : - CIVIL OASES. Anderson v Price.— Claim ££9 4s Id, being value of goods alleged to have been illegally taken by. defendant < on 21st of May, the goods belonging to plaintiff, as bailor to Dr Lightbourne. Mr Burdett with Mr W. B. Hawkins for plaintiff and Mr Staite for defendant. The case appeared to be one of law rather than of dispute as to facts. Frank Carr deposed : Was manager for plaintiff who was a cabinet maker in Wanganni; was acting under power of attorney for his employer ;..J)r Lightbourne had hired certain gp.ods under a deed of payment; on 21st May, by instructions, went to 'Dr Lightbourne's and took possession 7 of the goods (described) ; took them 'into the street and put some of them into an express ; Mr E, Price came up and said, " I destrain on those things for rent ;" said to him, "be careful, what yrou do— they are my property now ; "

he commenced taking them off the express; commenced putting them on again and he took them off again; he showed no authority ; showed him an authority; expense incurred in taking possession was 15s; drove to Feilding from Wanganui, costing 30s ; the loss of time was tw9 days, at 10s per day, and hotel expenses, 7s. Cross-examined : Plaintiff was ia Greymouth ; got instructions before he went . away ; had received further instructions ! since to take the goods ; bad no authority beyond the power of attorney (now read ; by Clerk of the Court) to bring present : action ; asked defendant for his authority i and he said it was for rent, but produced ; nothing to show ; did not again ask for the goods ; left them in charge of Mr Daw : have not made any demand for the goods to be delivered' up; did not now , claim the goods, bat their value, from . defendant. j S. I 'aw corroborated the evidence of last witness. C. Hodges deposed as to being employed by Mr Carr to assisfc in removing the goods from Dr Lightbourne's house \ , ' when Price came witness was sent by Carr for the police, and the goods had disappeared when he came back, Carr too having gone away to send a telegram. : Mr Staite addressed the Court, contending that plaintiffs case mast fail from weakness, that there was no resistance offered to plaintiff taking the goods, and that no tresspass had been committed, as Carr had virtually relinquished his claim to the goods by going away, and that plaintiff ought to be nonsuited. After a discussion on a point of law with the Bench, Mr Staite stated the case for the defence. He quoted authority to show that a stranger's goods are liable to destraint, and that they may be taken while remaining on the highway aJjoining the premises from which they have been removed, as in the present case. Robert Price deposed : Dr Lightbourne was tenant of his father's house in Eyre street at 14s per week ; received information that Mr Anderson was taking goods from the house; went and told Carr he deatraiued the goods for rent, £1058 [witness here produced the warrant under .which he acted, under Mr Staite's instructions, as solicitor for Thos. Price]; made no offer of surrender if the amount was paid; had no interest whatever in the goods ; they were still under his control; Dr and Mr* Liehtbourne assisted him in taking them back into the house ; no demand whatever had been made fur the goods. Cross-examined : Did nol show Ins authority to Carr } he did not ask for it; at tlie'timc he laid hands on the goods had not the authority with him ; made ho arrangement with Carr to give him a right over the goods. Mr Staite again addressed the Court,' still contending that the virtual abandonment of the goods by the plaintiff, aud that defendant's seizure of them was perfectly legalMr Burnett then addressed- the Court at considerable length, contending aud showing authority that the goods could not be seised by the landlord in the position in which, they were at the time, nor by any other person than the one in whose possession they then were. His Worship thought the plaintiff had a right to seize the goods, and that defendant ought not to have seized them. He would give judgment for plainiiff for £28 and costs. CBIHIKAL. Police v Edwin Holland.— Defendant pleaded guilty to having used abusive language towards John. Turner, jun., on May 17th. This case appeared to have been con- ' hecte'd with thetw<>precedingpolice cases. Mr Prior appeared for defendant. W. Page and J. Turner both gave evidence, the publication of which would be of little interest. , John Rees, a youth, gave evidence for . jtbe'idefetiee ; was present the whole ot the time, but didn't hear defendant use the language of which he was accused. . E. Newth, a boy, g%ve similar evidence: His *W<?fship said the whole thrie cases spoke* very discreditably for the youth of Feilding, and he was very sorry to see it In his opinion Turner was quite as bad as the other,, and ought- to have been a instead of plaintiff. Fined 10s *&hH Costs.' His Worship advised Con- : stable Gillespie to prosecute Turner, which he intimated he would do. The Court then adjourned.