Feilding R.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume IX, Issue 121, 12 May 1888, Page 2

Feilding R.M. Court

THITB9DAY, MAT 10, 1888. (Before E. Ward, Esqr., E.M.) (Continued irom last issue.) John Hopkins v. James Kennedy. — Claim £10, Mr Prior for plaintiff. This was a claim for the value of a horse, plough, and saddle detained by defendant. Plaintiff deposed : He had borrowed a horse and plough from Mr Lowers, per Mr Corpe ; the saddle he borrowed from Mr Corpe ; they were taken down to Kennedy's and left there; the parties were working together in partnership ; had demanded the return of the things. Cross-examined by Mr A. S. Baker: Was in partnership with Kennedy j put no capital in the partnership ; did not bring these articles into the partnership ; had told Kennedy they were borrowed ; did not attempt to borrow money on these things ; had no direct authority to take the plough out of Mr Thompson's yard ; the saddle belongs to Mr Corpe ; heard the horse was dead about six weeks or twomonths ago ; had gone for the horse, but Kennedy had told him if he had a letter for him he had better put it in the post ; Kennedy would not allow witness to cross the river. W. W. Corpe deposed : The saddle belonged to him ; the horse and plough were the property of Mr Lew«rs, and had been lent to Hopkins. Cross - examined : There was no- ■ agreement ; the plough was lent until Mr Lewers returned from England,, when a price could be arranged ; the horse was worth 255, and the sadd]* £2; £3 was the outside value of th* plough. Mr Baker, for the defence, said th» parties had entered into partnership, and Hopkins had brought these things-, into it. J. Kennedy deposed : The hors& was brought down by Hopkins ; he said it was his ; had not the saddle in his possession ; was willing to deliver the plough to Mr Corpe ; the horse isdead; Hopkins had not demanded it before it died ; the horse had been shot by order of witness. J3y the Court : Had ridden tha horsn to Palmerstun ten days before it died. The E.M, said the plough should be returned or its value £3, paid together with the costs of this action20s, no counsel's fee allowed; theplough to be left at Harper's store,. Campbelltown. Peter Apel v. G. H. Luxford. — Claim £78. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff, aud Mr Hanking for defendant: This was a claim for falling bush at 30s an acre. All witnesses were ordered out of court. J. B. Hoots, having affirmed, deposed: He was living on the land of his wife at Makino ; had written on behalf of his wife to Luxford ; a letter in reply authorised contracts to be let for felling bush ; let the contract to> Apel on the understanding that Luxford was to pay for it out of tho rent j the bush (52 acres) has been felled at 30s per acre and burned ; saw Luxford afterwards, who denied having: written the letter; had given a copy of the letter to . Luxford' e son ; had told him the work 4 had been done f there was a good deal said, but he* could not get Luxford up to the point of paying. * . Cross examined : There was no contract in writing between witness and. plaintiff; told him Luxford would pay ; wrote to Luxford in December telling him the bush had been felled ; could not say the month the contract was let; had let some other bushfelling contracts in Luxford's name ; had paid £56 or £57 value in lambs to thfr workmen on the other contract ; thereis yet £24 5s due ; they are awaiting: the result of this action ; the land isleased to witness' wife on a purchasing clause for £4500 ; Mrs Boots, owes nothing on account of rent at present ; an account for bushfellinghad been rendered by Apel ; had sent it to Luxford. By the Court : Understood th» money would be paid by Luxford out of the rent received from Mrs Roots;, had lent Apel £30 a month or six weeks ago. Peter Apel, having affirmed, deposed: He resided at Makino ; felled some bush on Luxford's land; thecontract was let by Boots for Luxfordj agreed to wait according to the term* of a letter from Luxford ; Had received £30 from Boots on account of the contract ; it was lent for the present ; got it on the work done ; it was to b& paid back when there was a settlement for the falling of the bush. Mr Hankins, for the defence, said the case would rest on the construction the Court put on the letter written by Mr. Luxford. As Mr Hankins did not intend to call evidence, Mr Sandilands, for the plaintiff, reviewed the evidence. Mr Luxford here went into the box to explain as to his denial of having written the letter ; when he received Boots' letter asking for payment he repudiated the claim altogether ; even at the present time he could not remember having written the letter. By the Court : The letter merely contained suggestions; wai not prepared to use money for the purpose of bushfalling on Mrs Boots' land. Mr Hankins addressed the Court, and Mr Sandilands having replied, His VVbrship said he had considered the evidence, and as a question of fact concluded that Mr Luxford recognised Mr Boots as agent for Mrs Boots; that Mr Boots was agent for Mrs Boots ; and, in terms of the letter dated July sth, acted as agent for Mr Luxford in letting contracts on the land, occupied by Mrs Boots, the property of Mr Luxford. The letter of July sth had special reference to felling bush. He considered Mr Luxford should pay the ; money, and would give judgment for plaintiff with costs £s_ss. Mr Hankins gave notice of appeal. J. A: Perreau v. J. A. Belk.—Claim £6 Us 7d for rent.

Plaintiff produced the lease. Mr Sandilands for defendant pleads his client had never been in occupa tion of the land. Judgment for plaintiff for 20s am <sOBtB 10s. . A. Parr v. Henry Hickman. — Clam £7 8s 6d. Mr Prior for defendant and Mr A. S. Baker for defendant. The facts of the case were :— A car bad been made by plaintiff to th. order of defendant, who had nottakei delivery thereof. After the lapse of i certain time plaintiff gave notice t. defendant the cart would be sold at hn risk unless he completed his bargaii by taking delivery and paying for it and any deficiency would be chargec against defendant. The cart was s< sold, and there was a deficiency whicl was now sued for, . After argument by counsel, Hn Worship nonsuited plaintiff wiihou making any order for costs. In giv ing his decision he said he sympath ised with the tradesman, but as th< contract was not in writing, and n< delivery had been taken, he had nc other course open than to nonsuit th< plaintiff. A case of a judgment summon! was called, but as there was no ap pearance of either of the parties the case was struck out. The Court then adjourned.