Feilding R.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume VI, Issue 1, 12 June 1884, Page 2

Feilding R.M. Court

Wednesday, Jvix 11th. (Before K. Ward, Esq., R.M.) CIVIL CABBB. C. Gascoigne ,v lfr. — Claim £1 6s. 9d. The: wrong person in this • case had been sued.. The t defendant should have been J. Tnrner instead of E. Turner. The latter' attended and was allowed 7s expenses. ' v "_Dick.— Judgment summons for £21 ll*} 9d. Mr Prior for plaintiff. Amount to be paid at £2 per month, in default 21 daysin gaol. Stewart v T. Sexton. — Judgment summons for £4 lis fid. No appearance of defendant. Mr Baker appeared for plaintiff. Amount to be paid forthwith or & days' imprisonment. Halcombe ftnd Sherwill v Joseph ManseU.— Claim £S9 8s lid on dishonored p.n., and- 'interest thereon. Mr Prior for plaintiff and Mr Esam for defendant. H« L. Sherwill gave evidence as to the. claim, which was for. money lent, after hearing which Mr Esam said' he could not disown the claim : for thb actual amount of the p.n., but must under the circumstances ask the Bench to disallow the interest,! quoting authority to ahow that this could be done according to the equities of thie case. -Ad', • Joseph Mansell deposed as to .having had a house erected through^a building society, Mr Sherwill having negociated the matter for him; signed the -note on a certain ocoasion, which he understood was the winding up of the affair ; had not had notice trom the bank of the note being dishonored. Cross-examined: Didn't know, what he was signing* when he signed the note; didn't know what one was, aa he had not to do with one before ; did all under the tuition of Mr Sherwill, and thought it was to pay, off the building society. Mr Prior addressed the Court, contending that the interest could be equitably allowed. * .. -i.._.. His Worship considered that the interest had been justly charged, and made an order for the fall amount.bf the claim to be paid. Mr Esam offered on behalf of the defendant to pay £2 per month.' Mr Prior objected to suoh an order being made, and an open judgment was therefore entered. .Trustees in W. Rapley's estate v James Laing.— Olaim £4* 9si i€_. Prior for plaintiffs. Amount to be paid with costs. - . ..' . X 7_T G. Dear vA. McDonald. . Dispute as to the-, ownership of a< cow and heifer.' Mr Baker for plaintiff. Defendant, conducted his own case. _ \. George Dear deposed : jLived apouf 4 miles ixom defendant ; formerly had a light roan cow; missed her thiee years ago ; found she wae on defendant's property ; who told defendant*"*! sons had driven her there from ihe v.'c.-t. <.■■.■- y. ■ : ■■ • ■ :■■ • Oroua Downs estate ; claimed the ownership and possession; defendant's son said it must be one' they had bought from Mr Stewart. '-.. '*"■ -oss-exaixiined : Didn't remember g* informed by defendant's son •■■—A they had an animal with-phiin^ Hrand on it ; had said nothing ndant personally during" all the - cow was on his land about ■ ihg plaintiff's. . iX 7 * gave evidence as to sell%g. _.. i.A^ cow with defendant's bikgA oh ifc._ Ijjjk Ci- Bought H from defenc it; bought "seme more from him tool 'some of themgot away, and went hack to defendant's land. This closed the plaintiffs ease. Geo. Wheeler .depbsed'as to having seen a cow on plaintiffs land with c($V . • jAx'l fondant's brand on it ; saw it afterwards on defendant's land... Ay Jno. McKenzie gave similar cVii dence. ;- ' f '•'■ ' A. McDonald, son of defendant, gave evidence as to one of his father's, cows 'being on plaintiffs land; went for her and found her gone (diary produced in which an entry of this was. made at the time) ; had not the slightest reason to doubt that the cow in question was their own. D. McDonald, another son of de-7 fendant, gave -evidence as. to the identity, of cattle with certain /brands. Defendant and Mr Baker each adj ; . dressed the Court at some length,^ after which His Worship said that he. ' . was satisfied as to the roan oow and her progeny being the property of plaintiff, and must' give an order for their return or their value to be paid. 'There was no evidence' before him aa to the heifer being plaintiff 's property. Order made for £11 and costs*-., f X Hammond, Wildbore, and Pricey Thos. Smith —Claim £12 : for' T t(Sad formation j This was a case adjourned from last Court day inor^er tfojit the! name of the last : named plaintiff miglit be , entered. 7 Mr \ Prior 7,appear.e6_ /for plaintiff and Mr Goodbehere for defendant. - :'.»-. > ; .A W. Hammond gave evidence as tothe •cpnti.abt- efhtfere tl- ( ss;*i&ss frff grades wrong, and 'apfced-'soi. of 1^

fendant to come and alter them; was told to do it himself ; said it was not his place, and was told he must wait till Smith, junior, could come; was afterwards told to alter the grades, and Mr Bray would come and see if they were right ; Bray came, brought the -plan, and compared it with what witness nad done ; Bray said what witness had done was right, and the plan waa wrong and would have to be altered; was told he had better go on according to the alterations made ; had done as much again as there was any need tor according to the plan; completed work according to corrected plan, ani did .not interfere with first plan; Bray said it was the best piece of work on the lino, barring none. E-* Cross-examined: Price worked with us two days and. two- hours; Bray made no conditions about -filling up a hole, ;but only said- ie would have to be done by somebody.-"-G. WiidboreT gave corrpberative evidence, which olosed the case for the plaintiff. „ ...- ■-; ; . .- • Thosj.Siu.th, .tike 'defendant deposed as io entering into a contract-with Price for 21 \\ chains ; : had iro contract with Hammond and Wildbore; never considered them as contractors witb.hjm; the work was not finished according to plan ; it is hot done -yet; there is about three chains jet to do. Cross -.examined: Paid Wild bore a cheque for first contract; had never told Hammond or Wildbor* he would pay them for second contract until the work was done. John Smith, sou of defendant, denied having anything whatever to do with Wildbore or Hammond as co-contractors with Price; the work was not yet finished and was ncn. according to the plans. T. A. Price deposed as to defendant , •peaking to him about a contract ; said he would take one if he could get hand« ; j engaged the" other plaintiffs to help him ; his contract' was with Smith alone ; Smith had nothing to do with Hammond and Wildbore in the matter ; know nothing about the alterations in the plans ; don't know anything about the work not being finished. .. , , „-- ---< kJharlisTJniy ' deposed : "Was "engineer to the Kiwitea Boad Board ; a contract was let to S|pithvfor.i^>rk onJPqrrys and Mcßeth*a "line ; witness supervised the work; Smith tried to. impress on him that the plans-Were'" wrong j witness said he couldn't see this, and if work was done according to plan as-altered by Hammond, and the hole fill«d up he would pass the work; \fc**oirfcwM not done; knew nothing about arrangements with Wildbore and Hammond. . Mr Goodbehere contended there was no contract at all with Wildbore and Hammond, Smith and Price being the only parties to At, that the contract was not completed, and that therefore there was no claim. Mr-Price submitted that all three persons had contracted for the work, and had done all they engaged to do. His Worship considered all three* to have been joint contractors in the matter. He considered, however, that they were liable for the incomplete portion of the work, which he would assess at £1, and gave judgment for £11 and costs.