Feilding R.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume XI, Issue 87, 16 January 1890, Page 2

Feilding R.M. Court

Wednesday, Januaby 15, 1890. (Before Mr Brabant, R.M.) DEBT CASES. J. B. Pybus v. J. Middleton. — Claim £7 18s. Mr Cooke for plaintiff. Jndgment for plaintiff and costs, 87s. . H. Crabb v. J. Childs.— Claim £6 16s 3d. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff and costs 395. • Same -v., Joseph LukeschewskL— Claim £12 13s 4d. Judgment for plaintiff and costs 48s, to be paid in three months. Same v. Zohrmanhi— Claim £20 10s Id. The debt was admitted, and an order made for .the amount to be paid by instalments of 15s per month, and costs 68s. Same v. Mrs P. Bear.— Claim £10 12s 6d. Judgment for plaintiff for £5 12s 6d and costs 475. (£5 had been paid, since ■proceedings were taken.) ; . Same y B. Douglas. — Claim £8 7s 3d. ,£3 had been paid on account. .Judgment for £5 7s 3d and costs 355. ; ; f... ■ Joseph Smith v S. Thacker.— Claim £3 ' 10s. ' Defendant had forwarded the money j for /the clajlm, omitting I 'the expenses. Judgment for 7s costs. 1 Bailey: Bros, vF. Gillett.— Claim £18 18s. Application for a re-hearing of the case was adjourned to ; next court day; February 12. ' ' ■ : dog cases. j The Dog Tax Collector of the Manchester Road; Board, Mr C. Bray v G. Wills, for having an unregistered, dog in his possession, fined 5s and costs, in default of payment 1 48 hours imprisonment with hard labor. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. ■ A. and J. B. Priugle v Phillip Hines. — Claim £3 13s lid. Mr Cooke for plaintiff and Mr Sandilands for defendant.: To be paid in one week, or in default four days m Wanganui gaol. DEFENDED CASES. Prior and Sandilands v R. Parr. — Claim £6 6s. Mr Cooke for plaintiffs. Mr Prior deposed as to the claim. Defendant pleaded that he was not indebted. J. Jensen deposed : He had paid Mr Prior £10 to put Mr Parr through the Bankruptcy Court ; understood- that was all there was to- pay. ! ' : Cross-examined by Mr Cooke : Understood that was to pay- in full. - -.-•■,*.■ ■ ■•■ The second case of • John Prior v R. Parr.— Claim £6 3s, Mr Prior deposed as to the particulars of the claim. These cases were adjourned until next court day to allow- plaiutiffs to supply defendant with particulars of the expenditure of the £10 paid by Mr Jensen. ' P. A. Petersen v Thos. Shortall.— Claim £10. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff and Mr Richmond for defendant. This was a claim for the value of a horse gored by a bull the property of defendant. Mr Sandilands gave an account of the affair, and then called Peter Albert Peterson deposed : He was a labourer reaidinsr near the Spur road ; knew Shortall's bull ; was working near defendant's property ; told, Shortall the bull was sticking them up at the camp ; heard his horse was killed; before this Shortall had told them to look out for the bull as it would "go for horses" ; the bull had stuck them up three times in the camp ; his mate }had spoken to Shortall but he took no notice ; when plaintiff told Shortall his, plaintiffs, horse had been killed by the bull he said he believed the bull had done it, but there was not any proof; the horse was buried about a chain, and a half from where it was killed on the riyer bed; dug it up to see it was his horse ; the horse was worth £10. - Cross-examined : Started working there in August ; could not remember whether Shorthall had said it was dangerous to tether horses ; had seen other cattle about; there is a tramway running through Shorthall's section; when he dug up the horse he identified it by the head and feet ; thought the date he went to see Shortfall was about the 24th of August. By the Court; The horse, was not tethered ; it had got away,, v Henry Ashworth deposed : He had.been working with plaintiff bnshfelling on Mr Little's property, a short distance .from Shorthall's ; had often seen Mr Shorthall's bull ; it was very ferocious ; had charged witness and " had him up a tree" j had a conversation with defendant, who had told him to take" care of their horses ; had heard Peterson's horse was dead ; Shorthall had told witness the horse was dead, killed by his bull— it was a bad job ; the horse was killed on McKay's property on the river bed;. ' \ Cross-examined : The bull charged witness on Monday the sth of August; Shorthall had said the bull was perfectly quiet. Re-examined : Heard the bull had since been shot ; the bull had him and his mates up a tree for half an hour. Edward Smith deposed,: He was a farmer on the Spur road ; had seen Shorthall's bull which, as far as witness knew, was always quiet ; saw the horse which was buried ; saw the new earth, and he and Peterson dug down and exposed the head and legs of the horse. Cross-examined: Generally rode through Shorthall's; the bull was generally^quiet ; there was any amount of cattle about ; had seen working bullocks running at large on the Spur road and river bed ; at different times bad seen bulls running there. ; John Stewart deposed : He was a farmer on the Ashurst road ; knew the bull ; it was a quiet bull ; said so because he could do what he liked with the bull ; and any other one could do so ; saw a horse near his whare lying dead ; it had been damaged in the side by a stake or a horn ; could not see the wound properly for. blood; the inside was coming out of the horse. Cross-examined : The bull was qniet ; was experienced as a driver of bullocks; there were all sorts of cattle on the river bed, always had been ; a bull stag is as liable to do any damage as a bull ; children had .passed him. and . they had ..not been harmed. (Mr Richmond here produced a plan of the locality;) There were people passing along the tramway daily. Re-examined : Could not say whether the bull was fond of horses ; had no conversation with Mr Shortall about this case. For the defence Mr Shortall deposed : His bull was as quiet as the ordinary run of such animals ; the track through his section was allowed to be open for the convenience of men i going to their work ; had told the ■tyiti nesses that the bull would not harm them, but if they were going, ia tether their horses in the clearing they better let him know and he would keep the bnll away ; had known bull stags to kill horses. Cross-examined: Since last August Had not seen any wild .cattle about on Mr Pharazyn's land, but there were lots close at hand ; Mr Ashworth had told him the bull had put him up a tree, but did not believe Mr Ashworih ; had brought away the. bull ; had buried the horse because the carcase- was 150 yards away r from his house on the windward Bide ; was unable to say whether it had been gored; the wound could have been caused by a stake ; hud shot the bull, which was three years old— which he called a lump of a calf; did not tell Ashworth and Peterson he had said his bull had gored the horse ; they lied if they said so, and '•witness told the truth. „ .'. ■-• ;. v , •■ ■ .. Re-examined : Had seen the same description of .wound by staking ; the bull ■ was aold but not delivered ; it was always quiet; was bothered by complaints an A

therefore shot the bnll, but only from the one party of men. By the Bench : Sold the bull to Mr Linton ; it was running on witness's own property ; The • dead horse was— he thought — on McKay's property, or between the river and McKay's property; .the river had taken away the fences. . The R.M. said it would be well for settlers to know there was a penalty of £20 for having bulls at large. - Mr Richmond* applied for a nonsuit on the 1 ground that the plaintiff had- shown ..tjipintributory negligence by allowing his horse to be left at large and to trespass. Mr Sandilands said that rniglit apply if the bull had .been McKay's and the thing had occurred- oh McKay's land. Mr Richmond addressed the court and Mr Sandilands having replied, ... The R.M. did not think the plaintiff should be nonsuited oh the grounds of contributory negligence. ? There was abundant evidence the bull was dangerous, and the defendant had this .knowledge or he would hot have shotfit. "He. (theiS.M^)! considered the horse was killed by the bull and he gave judgment for plaintiff for £10, costs of court 255, witnesses 345, solicitor's fee 21s, total £4, ;■ Jensen v Wilkinson. — Claim 17s 7d. Judgment for plaintiff for 5s 7d (amount paid into court) and 3s costs of court, each party to pay their own expenses. ' J.: McNaughton and "Win. Patten v John Laing. — Claim £15 15s. Case adjourned. Joseph Smith v Whittaker.— Claim £9. -Mr Gooke for defendant.Plaintiff deposed : He was employed to build a chimney for . defendant ; there were 1850 bricks employed ;' no lime was used ; loam was used ; paid the cartage of the bricks ; there was a hole in the top of the chimney — none in the sides; if a sack was put on the top of any chimney smoke would get through the crevices of the best built chimney, even if lime were used ; the chimney does not bulge ; it was possible, as the house was not finished, and there was no lime used, the rain might have washed the earth out. [The witness said that he had seen Whittaker several times since the chimney was finished, and this was the first time any complaint had been made as to the character of the work.] By the Court: £3 10s was* paid, before, the chimney was built ; .there was no person present when the agreement was made as to the material to be used. Mr Cooke for the defence called James Whittaker, who deposed: He had arranged with plaintiff for a chimney for £10 108; plaintiff was to find lime; when Smith started the chimney called his attention to there being no lime, Smith said he had it in the cart ; the receipt (produced) was handed to him; did not think much of it ; made no arrangement to pay Smith:; 10s a month interest the chimney is now like a dog's hind leg ; sand and stuff (produced) was used to build it ; there are holes all over it ; it burns right enough. : ; Cross-examined : Had not agreed to pay 10s per month ; had offered a horse to pay the debt, £8; if the horse wasn't worth more than ten shillings it was worth as much as the chimney. By the Court : Was not there when the chimney was built. Frederick Andrew, a settler on the Taonui road, deposed: Had been a general contractor connected with brick work for 15 years; inspected the chimney at the request of defendant (rough sketch produced) ; enumerated the flaws in the chimney ; would not pass it as a contractor ; the bricks at the pit are worth £2 5s per 1000, 4 loads would take them up at 15s per load, the labor is worth L 2 10s to LB. By the R.M. ; To make the chimney right it would have to be pulled down a. certain distance, and rebuilt ; that would coat L 3 or L4 — that would include lime.. . ........ Adolpii Goldfinch, settle? on the Valley road, deposed : Had examined the chimney carefully ; the drawing (produced) represented its defects; the hole in the roof had been cut wrongly', and the chimney had to be built up slewed to get through it ; he and Mr Andrews had put a sack on top and the smoke had: come through in several places ; knew a good chimney when he saw it. - ' ■••••' Cross-examined: Whitaker had never complained of the chimney until he had been summoned. By the Bench : The holes must have been left since the chimney was built ; it was crooked, bulging in and oat. Mr Cooke said that was the case for the defence. Haying addressed the Court, Mr Smith said the defence was a surprise to him. If he had known the difficulties of the case he would have employed counsel. Had the defendant informed him of the alleged state of the chimney he would have sent an, expert up and put it right. As to charging the interest that was only to induce the defendant to pay with as little 'delay as possible. He (plaintiff) felt he was at a disadvantage. The R.M. said the defendant had not agreed to pay the 10s a month interest, and the Court would not give such iinterr r est as 10s per month on £7. He would? deduct the amount stated by Mr Andrew, £3, and give a verdict for £4 and costs 265. (Plaintiff applied for, his expenses, which were not allowed.) T. M. WiUiams v. Owen Mcllrpy and others. — Claim £8 for wages. Mr Cooke for plaintiff, and Mr Sandilands for defendants. Judgment for plaintiff for £6 14s and costs £3 3s. - . The Court then adjourned.