Feilding R.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume IX, Issue 35, 10 September 1887, Page 2

Feilding R.M. Court

:— ♦ '— ■ ' Thursday, September 8t«, 1887. (Before R. Ward, Esq., R.M.) The following is a continuation of the evidence for plaintiff in the oase, ! j. Hastie v. Marshall and Copeland, brewers of Dunedin :— Edward Bull, brewer, of Bulls, deposed :' He rhad been brewing SJ" years ; could tell good or bad beer ; I XXX beer is ordinary beer; XXXX beer is good ; Hastie has a good oellar ; couldn't hare a better ; beer brewed by witness had been in the same cellar for 12 months; if beer went bad in that cellar in 4 months it must be bad beer; sampled some: beer for Hastie, four casks, from | Dunedin ; it was sour ; good beer may go bad if put in faulty oasks; selling bad beer does a publican's business harm. : Gross- examined : Bee^ would not improve; by lying 23 days at the railway station in the. middle, of summer ; did not think it would damage it; XXX is an ordinary ale ; everything abpve is a special, ale, and ought to keep 12 months ; did-not know XXX beer was brewed for quibk consumption; the stronger the ale the better it keeps ; supplied Hastie with a good deal of beer ; it was a matter of taste >wh!ether his . beer was Tbejjter than: Marshall and Copeland's or not ; ex-, pect to be informed of bad beer when it is tapped— any way within 2 months; then an allowance is made ; but not; after 12 months ; since he had his present brewer he never had any ;beer returned. . .. .. ... ; ;; ' ■;.,'■'.''., '„■•"■ ■ *'/,",. Re-examined : , Did 6to J8 ; hogsheads a month to Feilding ; that is to, eaohhbWe; XXX?' beer ought* ;to\ be improved 3 months after delivery ; i£ be^r was under, cdver^t: the' station Eorj 23 days it would not deteriorate; W. H. P^oe,' brewer, Palmerston, , made an affirmation. He deposed : Had been in a brewery from Ms cradle, and a practical brewer for 25 years ; was now doing a successful business ; in February Mrs Hastie showed him a glass of beer ; he said: it was bad ; it was' on draft at the time ; it was bad from excessive acidity ; Hastie's cellar was a good one — tool and roomy ,; considered it a great risk to send cheap beer a long distance; to the best -of his knowledge he had only once had some beer returned by Mr Hastie, and he, • was npt sure but what some others had been returned at Painierstbn ; . would expect a hotelkeeper to notify by letter oi' telegram at once if he found the beer bad; would not take beer back after it had been sampled and paid for, but if it went bad in a week, or a month, after that, he would probably charge it for good beer ; would have done so to keep up his business connection; beer known as " running beer" should keep for about 3 months. Edward Jackinan, contractor, de« pOped : He was a contractor, residing at Feilding ; remembered going to Hastie's for a drink ; ordered 2 Dunedin beers; it was served, and was too bad to drink ; thought he knew a good glass of beer when he saw it; drank a good lot of it. Cross -examined : The time was just after the Feilding races ; was not surprised to learn the Feilding races were held on April 1 1 . Charles Hodges deposed; He was a laborer, of Feilding; remembered being with Jackman in Hastie's this year sometime in March; neither could drink the beer supplied ; there bad been races about that time; it -was just after the 4th «f the month Jackman paid him. James Shields deposed : He waa a servant for Mr. Hastie; was there in March last ; remembered 4 hogsheads of Marshall and-Copeland's beer being on tap;. several' persons objected to it as being bad ,' tried it himself, and found it was so; under instructions from Mr Hastie took it off tap ; took the 4 hogsheads out of the cellar, and put them in a shed in the yard. Martha; Hastie, wife of plaintiff, deposed : Remembered getting some beer from Marshall and Copeland,, of Dunedin; it was put on tap at the end of January or beginning of February; generally was in the Bar; the customers complained of the beer, and. would'nirdriak it ; some wanted Old Tom in it to enable them to drink it ; could' nt afford to give them . that for (s(i ; saw the commercial traveller" when he came tip; he sampled the beer, and said it was all right ; as they wanted to get away to the races, told her husband to give a p.w., and done with it ; turned off the. beer; as Marshall and Copeland had always sent better beer when ,^ny went bid did not take any notice for a time ; have kept bees 9 months in their cellar ; beer drawn and refused is thrown in the tub ; XXX is like aU other beer; there might hare been half the hogshead drawn before it was turned off ; would not say the 'house had loßt £10 worth of custom, but she had had that worth of annoyance. Mr Hankins called for the defence George Miller, who deposed to being an experienced brewer ; knew the various brands of the trade ; XXX was not generally made as stock beer, and was not ' intended for loug keeping; it should be kept in the shade and cool; would not Ie improved by being kept several days in a railway shed; if people kept it two or three months it was not usual to recognise its then being bad. Crosß-exammed : Was not brought up a brevrer ; picked up his experience from Mr Lloyd and the Palmerston Brewing Co. ; (witness admitted that several breweries, which were named, and for which he had brewed, had become failures) ; had oftes had com* plaints about the beer he had brewed ' for certain breweries. Mr Haiikins addressed the Court at some length. He contented there was no special warranty given with the beei\ There had been no complaints from other persons served from the same brew. It could not be expected to be good after, lying so Jong at the

I station, and the© in Hastie's cellar before being used. He> submitted that Hastie after testing the beer, pronouncing it good, constituted in, law an election of the ' article, anct j barred the power to afterward* complain of its quality, v ' Mr Sandilands contended that though there was no written warranty, there was an implied one,- as-4he -■ I article was bound to be merchamtable, I and liable to keep - good wMlebeingv/ used. This beer was found tod after being two months in a cellar wliere *£*"*., oughf to have kept good; from 6 to 12 | months. He held that the weight " of \ the evidence wasnßtrungly on the side of the plaintiff^ and went to prove' ;that the Veer could; not -have ■fceenf-' 1":/---merchantable on its arrival- fH6; ! ! pited authority to show that a person^ y may acoept- goods and afterwards * bring an aotion for breach -of contract^ -'■ having found that he accepted them ; - inewor. ? ; v"v ■_?->■ - : -»> J^-~- '>''•'■■■'■ >■■'. His Worship assumed that ih»beer' &; was sold; with fan implied warranty, t < Beer brewed with a view of having to< ■;■■ go a long distance, and partly by sea, i i ought to be of a quality accordingly. He believed the beer to have been bad -,-r. when tapped; And afterwards aoeepted. in lerror. He took it that the beet ; ought to have been good enough to i keep for at least 4 months, . : The de- < fenuant company he considered were . liable, and he would give judgmentfor the plaintiff against "John Marshall, trading as Marshall and Cope- , land, of Dunedin, brewers," for the sum of £20 and costs. He could not see his way to award spepial damages^ ; ■;. Mr Hankins objected to the amend- . ment in. the name of defendant, and . notice of appeal against His Worship's decision. ; v> ■;E : Gpaßeyr^^ Henry. This, wwats t an iriterplpader summons for the, re- - cbvery pj certain , goods seized by the ; defendant, and return of deposit made by iphjintiff. -Mr Hankina 1 \f or plaintifi, and Mr Sandilands for defendant ' Elizabeth- Cossey deposed : Wka _ wife of Edward Coßse^'^ ■ ; Kiwitea; "had been left by a brothei? f £169 ; formerly lived at Talmerstonj . deposited certain money in the bank : there 6> 'her own accoiint ; : fit& l /: horses, side .Baddle, and bridle 'were' her: own prdperfy,boTjght3h ; Aprils J< 1 886 ; the 'second horse was TioUght in ! Noyember?of Mr Lew^ert, arid paid'fdjf " >; in her own* house and with her own ' ( money; : : " r ! "V l?: " '■' ' '' bli " :: :J' X'K ' :'\ Oharleg Henry, 1 • saddler j ; Feildingj deposed r'Kiaew Mr ; Cossey';' whd came to hini about some harness; /fife f had a horse, which he said was Ifia"; own, arid said he had another one, aiid - they were both his. v o '; James Meehan, Constable at Feild? ing,^ deposed to seizing the goods ; Mrs Oossey claimed the pony, andllte ;'- --husband said the other horse wasjilfea Cussey's ; he (witness) said he-cottldn^t ' help it, he must take them and they -' must fighfeit but afterwards. His Worship was satisfied that tBS~~ property seized belonged to Mrs Cos- ; sey. He ordered that the bailiff give - up possession, and that, the mgff&jr deposited by plaintiff be returned. The ques tion of costs he would reserve, Jopita Matina v. Thomas Jordan.—Claim £4 19s 6d, This was a claim for alleged illegal impounding of $ horse. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff, and Mr Hankins for defendant ; It was admitted . that "the hone waa taken to the Palmerston pound, a distance of seven miles, instead of to Awahuri, only two miles. Mr Sandilands pointed out from the Impounding Act that impoimding mujt be done at the nearest pound. ; ;. Thomas Jordan, ranger to the Manawatn Highway Board, deposed to having authority to siege stray animals as far as the Qroua river ; found the ; horse in question and took it to Palmerston ; the pound was closed it being late at night ; put the horse into / a paddock and .impounded ' it neift morning. fi ; '... - U"* ;-.•.•••.:. ;'•':.■: ■ : Frederick Merrick was with defend- - ant, and corroborated his evidence. • Both Counsel addriassed the Court. Mr ; Sandilands contending that .the Act required impounding to be made, at the nearest accessible, pound, irre« spestive as to what district it was in, and; lieref ore the horse should have been taken to Awahuri, and Mr Hankins submitting that the nearest pound meant the nearest within the district in which the ranger's authority . exw tended, and that he was accordingly i right impounding the animal »t Pajxa* erston. His Worship said the case was one of importance to the publio, and he should not be doing his duty without carefully looking over the law on the matter, and he would therefore reserve judgments H ' Hoeta v. H. Hughes and another, — Claim £6 10s. This was a oa.se, acU, . jou^ned from last court day; . for the .presence of a Native Asgessor. Mr Staite for defendant. j His Worship said that during the interval for luncheon the parties had been to him saying they were prepared to settle it out of court. . Mr Staite asked for the case tobe struck out. ? ' ; > Mr Sandilands objected and the case was again adjourned, U A. Frederick v. C. Bill,— Claim £5 17s ljd for tax paid by plaintiff for land sold to defendant in December 1883. Mr Prior for plaintiff and Mr Goodbehere for defendant. The plaintiff deposed to being a set* tier! at Beaconsfield ; previously ha 4 propety at Mangaone, which he sold to Bill; ! property tax on it after it was sold (receipt produced). • Qross-etamined : : In the returns made to the Proper^r Tax Assessor in» eluded his stock and other property j six months after transferring the land sent a notice to the commissioner ; got no reply, and sent another after six months, An argument here ensued between, counsel and bench. His Worship was^-c - inclined to think the plaintiff was;«^^ titled to recover part of claim^ajwj^tv^. V judgment for plaintiff* for £4iOßJ^^ : 4 Pjnseitj: ,3pWlteft

14i for wage* as roadman. Mr Saisdilaads for plaintiff, Sdmuad Goodbeher©i€lerk t-» too defendant Board appeared on its behalf ; Plaintiff deposed that he bad tora>erly wked for tfae Board at 8a per day; on this occasion; fee had worked 14 dava,4ii*d was only paid at the rats of 78 per day. : . . Edmund Gooibebena, Clerk to the Board/ Charles Braf* engineer to the Board, and p. Bariiwloinev were examined, the latter «• to the rats of wages he is paying his mea. . Judg)»eat was given for tfco defendant withou£ costs.; •■■-- F. Train v, M» T. K. Foster.— Claim; 452 > 19a, Mr GoedbeHere for defendant. The plaintiff and defendant both gavo evidence, the latter ' positively denying d^^bt,aod stating that she had" ao property hi her own. The were had for her son, and she never undertook the payment. ■ William Foster, «on of/defendant; gave ©^idence of the ; goods having been booked to his brother Cheorge. Judgment for defendant. . ' - . F. .Train v. Di Kitgoiir.^-Claiin £3 5s ,7dL Certain items were admitted, And GtrtiTß alleged by ds^hdant.; Judgment for plaintiff for $2 12a 7d r B. -Qimp v. Eck«rmen.--lClai«a JBIS, damages for an> alleged assault. 3£r Staite for plaintiff, and Mr Sandw lands for defendant. . : '■■. -'-■- ;\ Fanny ;C^m6d^Kwed^ to owning a paddock which, the defendant alleged 4o have the use of ; was invited to; his house about it 5 an altercation ensued, when defendant pushed- her and she Alippeiaf^f s&l was laid up ; Jin^ jonseof the injury, she : being then in a delicate 1 state of, health. Witness was . cross-examined bat stated nothing of importance. V Kichard Climo, husband of plaintiff, deposed to being from home, and on coming home found his wife ill X» bed. :f . : -' : r- ;i ■; " ■.-''■■■■ .".:■.- .-• Maud Climo, a lirtle .daughter of defendant; joJso gave evidence of the assftuit, an 4 her mothers consequent sickness. Eoi-the: defewse '©eo»ge Sekerman =and two otherV witnesses ■ were examaned, and denied anjr assault. ;;.,'. :;.v Hi« Worship was satisjELed there Jhad' 2>een an assault, fe«t not a serious, one. ; He would give judgment for .£s and; 4c08t8.-' .'.."■ . . . -„..- .. .■ ■ : ■ .'■ ■-' C. E. NJchelas v. W. S. Stwte — Olftimv. iudgment snnunona for £W , and costs for i yenC t „lfr^ Prior for plaintiff.; Ordered^ to be naid at && per month, ...-..- •• The Court then adjourned, ;. .::.,..■—■ - ■■^■^ - •■..■■'■■■■■' '-j