Palmerston and Wanganui Ram Fairs

Feilding Star, Volume XI, Issue 99, 13 February 1890, Page 2

Palmerston and Wanganui Ram Fairs

The annual ram fair held at Palmerston North on Friday, was well attended, but owing to the supply being grater then the # demand the prices were not quite up to mark, though on the other hand it is alleged the reseryes were far exceeded. We take the following list of prices from the Manawatu Times : — Messrs F. R. Jackson & Co. Lincolns, — Mr J. Collins, Hawke's Bay 20 rams, 4gs; Mr Turner, Hawke's Bay, 5 rams, 3gs ; Mr J. Baker, Fordell, 1 1 rams, 4f gs ; Mr J. Reid, Elderslie, 5 rama, l£ga ; F. Sutton, Southland, 10 rams, sgs; Mr T. Bryoe, Marton, 9 rams 3£gs ; Mr J. McLennan, Oroua Downs, 39 raras, old sheep, l£gs; Mr P. Threlkeld, Canterbury, 13 rams, 3gs ; Messrs J. and W. Blair,. Wanganui, 47 rams, lies. Romneys. — Mr R. Cobb, Raukawa, 50 rams, 3gs. Shropshire Down. — Mr J. Manson, Palmerston, 11 rams at 4-Jgs, and 5 old rams at 2gs. Messrs F. R. Jackson and Co»'s Wanganni'ram fair commenced yesterday, a large attendance being present. Over 1200 rams were entered, and as many ewes. The bidding for the rams was only fair, though some - passed off by wellknown breeders fetched an average of 5, 6, and 7 guineas. A fine stud ram of W. Wilson, of Whenuaknfa, fetched the top price of 31£ guineas. Buyers from the South Island and Napier*

Feilding K.M. Court "Wednesday, February 12, 1890. (Before Mr Brabant, 8.M.) W. Light v. H. Axup.— Claim £52 10s 6d. Adjourned from last court day. Mr Sandilands appeared for the defendant and applied for a further adjournment. Mr Cooke, solicitor, appeared, for plaintiff and admitted -payment of .£lO, and ss. for adjournment. Judgment for £42 5s 6d and solicitors fee. Hugh Crabb v. Margaret, Johnston. — £7 15s Bd. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for amount and solicitor's fee. John Bishop v. D. Dowdell. — Claim £5 2s 3d. Defendant confessed the claim and offered to pay at 10s a month to which plaintiff objected. Judgment for amomnt to be paid at £1 per month. Defendant said " I can't do it, so that's straight." W. A. Sandilands v. H. Axup, — Claim £1 Is. Adjourned till next court day on application of plaintiff. W. A. Sandilands v Margaret Johnston. —Claim £± 3s 3d. Mr A. W. Morrah for plaintiff. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for amount and costs. Prior and Sandilanda v. R. Parr. — Claim £6 6s ; and John Prior v. B. Parr. — Claim .£6 3s. Mr Cooke appeared for plaintiffs and Mr Fitzherbert for defendant. These claims were for alleged legal work done and were heard concurrently. A plea of bankruptcy was put in by the plaintiffs' solicitor. John Prior gave evidence of the claim, and was closely cross-examined. When asked what was the usual custom when a man came to file his schedule, he declined to give a legal opinion in the witness box ; did not agree to put defendant through his. bankruptcy for .£lO. |_Mr Cooke here objected to cross-examination on evidence given in the case last court day. His Worship said he had no note or recollection of the evidence alluded, to having been given in the case at' the previous hearing.] Robert Parr, coachbuilder, of Feilding, deposed to Mr Prior saying he would put witness through his bankruptcy for i>10 ; Jensen paid the money, and plaintiff said there was no more to pay ; had only hadone of the accounts ; saw nothing of the other till the Constable brought it ; believed it was Prior's account he got. A. W. Morrah, barrister and solicitor, Wellington, gave evidence as to the customary manner of " putting a man through" for JlO. Both counsel addressed the Court. His Worship calculated the items of fees and actual costs in conducting . defendant's bankruptcy, and found that out of the £10 that it was alleged was to cover the whole cost there would be nothing left. He gave judgment for the plaintiffs in each case with costs. A. Angus v. M. Beazer. — Claim £4 Is 6d. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff. The alleged claim was for work done. Plaintiff gave evidence of agreeing to work for defendant at 8s per day; and defendant said he had no money to pay him. Defendant made a statement which was somewhat confused, and judgment was given for amount and costs 12s. A. M. Grainger v. D. Younger.— Claim £& 0s Bd. Mr Cooke for plaintiff and Mr Sandilands for defendant. Plaintiff deposed to being a contractor at Feilding ; agreed in August last to do 21 chains of road formation at 21s per chain, one chain of which was taken off, and claim was for balance due. The defence was that the work had not been completed according to contract, and had to be done at defendant's expense. David Younger, the detendant, corroberated plaintiffs evidence as to the agreement made between the parties, and detailed that part of the contract which hadnot been executed by plaintiff, and which he (witness) had to have done by someone else. Considered he had paid defendant every farthing he was entitled to. John Funnell, a laborer, working for defendant, deposed to the work as left by the plaintiff beiug totally unfit to be passed by the Engineer, and to doing the work that was necessary. John Pollock, boarding-house keeper, at Feilding, at whose house the plaintiff had been staying, stated what he knew of the case from what each party had. said to him about it. Charles Bray, junior, sub-Engineer to the Manchester Boad Board, gave evidence of the incomplete state of .the work as left by the plaintiff. Both counsel having addressed the Court, after which His Worship summed up and gave judgment for the defendant with costs, witnesses expenses and counsels fee, amounting to £3 19s. Mr Pollock did not claim expenses. H. Johnston v. T. H. Wishaw. — Claim .£l3 ss. Mr Cooke for plaintiff and Mr Sandilands for defendant. Herbert Johnston, the plaintiff deposed to being a laborer at Birmingham, and having agreed to underscrub some bush for defendant, which he did, and defend- ( ant did not object to the work, but told plaintiff he would not pay him till he put out some ratas that were on fire, which witness considered uo part of his work. Witness was lengthily cross-examined. Thomas Moflatt, storekeeper at Birmingham, deposed to defendant saying to him that plaintiff was rather slow in getting on with the work but was doing it all right. The case for the defence was that the work was improperly done, and not ac- . cording to contract. John Munroe, a settler in the Apiti Block, deposed to inspecting the work, and described how it was improperly done. Henry J. Wishaw, father of defendant, gave similar evidence. Thomas H. Wishaw, the defendant, deposed to giving the plaintiff 6d per acre more than he offered to do the work for on condition of his firing the ratas after he had scrubbed' round them ; warned Johnston hejwas not doing his work right ; couldn't pass the work as plaintiff loft it. D. H. Wishaw, brother of defendant, described the unsatisfactory state of the work done by plaintiff ; helped to fell the bush and had to finish the scrubbling as they went on. The case was adjourned till next Court day for the evidence of a man named Mitchell. Mayor, Councillors and Burgesses of Feilding v. F. Gillett, claim Jl3 Is lid, and Bailey Bros. v. F. Gillett, claim £18 18s, were both adjourned till next Court day. S. J. Thompson v. Enoch Cornwall. — ■ Judgment summons for .£9 17s 4d. Mr Cooke for plaintiff. Case adjourned on' the application of plaintiff's solicitor. The Court then adjourned. ■