Feilding R.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume XI, Issue 123, 10 April 1890, Page 2

Feilding R.M. Court

Wednesday, April 9th; 189(h (Before H^W^Bral^ f ßfq. r B~M. r and . |i:... &AAen,Esq./£p.) ■ JPofiße ▼ W-vH. Thomas, a boy <; eight years of age,;, charged witk breaking a pane of glass in a railway carriage, "by throwing a stone on the 24th of March. The little fellow, wha was weepingjbitterlyt , confessed he was guilty. His father who was present said he was willing to pay the damage ss. The lad- was discharged with . a^ftuj6j^JMftJ^e», tOH.pajt^e^eato^Bj'total 7s. The father promised to look loiter the boy in future. •; i- - */i . „.■ • :■' DEBT CASES . v „ ■ . ,:... -•' - ■ " »»,-— _-^V ' jJ -,,^'. j~. '.-^-_ Tj**r - «.**'■&•■ ; .'>"*■*' '■■"-'■ £3 .ss, 9d % Judgment for' plaintiff and ' : . , :■*.'■::_■;?■<.. •:■■ iuiS£ 3' slbompson;cr' Jbhir Newman.-— Claim 31ty 10* id. ; Judgment for plain- v tiff by consent for JE9, lOs Id and costs 20s; solicitor's fee 21s. Mr Cooke fpr plaintiff. . ■;■'•; JUDGMENT BUMMONS. T* R^Taylor vt Prime P^ek'ey^^laub MMJS& Mr Sandilands for plaintiff. I Ordered to be paid within one month, or in-de^ault 10 'days imprisonment in Wan- -. - pnWgaol. !*,'.'.' '.. ' .],, '■ ; • /•; •-■■- DEFENDED CASES. ..,.../."..: i His Worship delivered judgment in 'tha : case Borough Council v Gillett, heard afc ish>Jas&&nfrt day.' Me^^ reoamtulatedtherr salient poinfe of thW case.:; The^ieoisiou Was in : of defendant, but the judgment did not! carry costs as the defendant had not taken the precaution to repudiate* his liability;. ;•s'?; i'f> r T' r : i■■ - : " '■■"• HdnsPf Meyer v Harry Hickford,.junr, —Claim J66 14s, for trespass-, at ;Catnpbelltown>Jßsland special damage 24s for the hire of ;his servant. Mr Cooke for plainthf and -Mr 1 defendant. Mr '• pppke gave a resurn^ of the case and. 'called ' :"" *'"'■ ; " "•' •■•■ : -• . ; ' ■ -■ • /vHvK?Meyer, who deposed : He was al settler it Campbelltown ; her was living; on land' rented from Mr Prisk; last year saw defendant galloping acrf^a his patte - '. dock- at any time he pleased ; asked Hickford who gave him permission to cross the-'.* paddock; '■' he laughed and went awaytnis summer on two occasions, their horses. w.ere uway ;' nailed up the gates irfJcoose- / •quence; on Monday 2nd March on hi* .return from the country he found* boards had been broken which his wife bad put up to fasten the gate. .His. horses and cattle were found on the roadside, a hors& at the mill, on the Wednesday 2. horses, were found by his eldest son, agpd 14, afc. Carnarvon; 1 paid his son wages 20s s/'-----week and his tucker. " Cross-examined by Sandflahcfe ; <■ Had' paid his son- £9 or JBIO in nine months;, the land adjoining is Priak's n«w; had not been told that the neighbors had .a . right to cross the land occupied by plain- ' tiff; MrGibbshad taken the privilege to* himself; he said he. thought he had a right ;. had complained to Mr Prisk who told plaintiff ' the best thing, he could dp» was to put a lock "on the gate ; Prisk had told Mm that his servants- should cross ; Hickford is working for Mr Prisk; hewould leave his solicitor to make up theparticulars of the £5 damages claimed had pot repaired the broken gateTh* could not swear that defendant had broken^ the boards. , ■ • ; . : - - ; ( By the Bench: 5s -would -put the gat* right again ; the 'gate had always beea fastened; it had beea nailed np three= times.: •, : ' ■•% v ;.< i.- : 'v ..• . : „-,-:•■•-'•■ (Caroline Meyer deposed:: She was the> , .. wife of plaintiff ;. on. 2nd March, her has- . f band went away ; before going he reV" quested her to nail up. the gate ; duE «»; the board nailed on was secured; saw Hickford ride irij> to thegateiatiiliireak ' it ; told him he would be sued ;; he saiaV ' way;.'* itwaa a sice moonlight night. ..A : -.:i':'f;-i.,i-i^-': Cross-examined : It was to keep^ the horses in, not Mr. H ckfbrd out,, the g\te was nailed up ; he wojid' never' shut the gate when fie' went through,! otherwise there would 'be ttb objection ; afterwards, went to -shut the gate but could not do so j- - in the morning the' horses and cattle were - ; goner;' other people were in- the habit of going over the land ; her hosband sometimes tied up, the gate with flax ; : the top raU of the gate was broken ; the boy was. three days 'looking for the; horses^ : This was the case for the 1 plaintiff. / ■ y For .the defence Mr Sandilands said her "Made a general denial, also, that defendant had a right tcßcro» the/land. ) n '-^ r The R.M. aaked if t Mr Sandilands was . •|pij9igitp:rai&e a question, of,, title because^ if so, it was cwt of the jurisdiction pf the ' Court... N •'■■■ ■••■■"•'■ •• - - MBr Sandilands twas understood to .reply r that such wai his intention. A " * * ' J '~ II Harry Hickford, who objected to' take an oath, made an,'imiiaati6nl deposed t AT 1 he. f \*as a laborer residing^ at Sandon,, >.: working for !Mr Gibbs ; on'' the '2ncPb'f i ; ■'' March went thcough .Meyer's land ; in tLe> ; -. qflorhm^JlielgftW^was wi&oui fastening^ T ther^ waa a board nailed to thepostjone '' end free, but oa his return in the evening M the; other end had been nailed to* _ «e ; two, boys were with him?; pushed, • : the gate and the nails camf ; th/ough the k board; went through with' his horse; closed tiie gate in as gobd a condition as, , it was in the morning; did not destroy ' the top rail of the gate- Mr Gibbs gave ; ' hjm permwsion to go through the land; twelve - months ago had a conversation! - with Meyer on the subject; told Meyer >■ that Gibbs' had given him permission: to> . go through the land. .. . , "": 4 Crofls-examihed: Did not^know how- : /the rail was broken ; never left the gata« open^ knew Meyer objected to hi* going ' /over ; there ; knew Gibbjs had offereduto> J pay Meyer the lawyer's fee andthft. expense of the summons after hfeihad been ■ •sued. : - x< „.,_; lv;., v V v . t< - ■■'[-._ ,;. v : J, H. Gibbs, farmer, Sandon, deposed : He had a piece of land from. Prisk adioiningiiiat of Mr Meyer; had a lease; no right-of-rway was embodied in. the lease (this .evidence was objected :M\fc r ffi. r Cooke),, ■•■?;■.■■; Cross-examined: Offered Mr Meyer to settle the case by paying this solicitof 's i fee : ' and cost of summbns ; M^eyer asked>24s ; ' ■ more for the boy; Hick^rd djiTnot tell him to go and settle thfr easel' ".HT-'S.I This was the case. for the defence., Mr Sandilands addressed the court and; contended that a question of ; title was inK .: yolvedi, s ; „... , ;i .j .: r ..... .j „; j. ;. .,: „„;:;,./,'■■ Mr Qpo^e replied to-jih* question a* to. | the jurisdiction %nd showed that a question of title mauit be a bona fide one to '■■■ oußt the jurisdiction of the Court,, such ( bpna; fide question had not arisen. He , did not want vindictive damages, b^it iuf~ noient toshow Mr Hiokford thit he had* •'" /no right to break down people's fences in ; this m^nnwr. . -. ■■■ '■■ .:• • ■ -.--■ • '■ ■" •■' --TT ■ ,■ . not been shawn that such leaite a» wit" , cojatendedtpr had been given by }fa HJSjfct : i The court held that plaintiff had a right " :to present defendant goin K through We proper^. ' The ordinary damage* wfoOa^ be taxed at Is and the special dunasea at 12s and costs. ' . - B. S.^ehny vD., M. Brooksrfr-Claim ~ Mr Cooke fbrplain^aiidMt- ' 'SandilSno's for defendant. This tarbseont of a contract for the sale of lOftbaga; of? oats by plaintiffi to ddfeodant, tha < c J5 Q *F a ,°fe WWStiw; wth which it wm BT B. Fenny, a settler a| ,^narvofa |>v :

and the plaintiff in the case, gave his version of the circumstances : of the. sale and delivery of the goods ; defendant had refused to accept the delivery of the last 30 bags, which, consequently were left ia the hands of witness and had since gifeatly depreciated in price . In. cross-examination witness denied' that defendant agreed to take the oats provided he could find sale for them. » William (Jeore, an eixiployee of plaintiff, deposed to being present when a conversation took place between plaintiff and defendant about the balance of the oats, and the latter refused to take them on the alleged ground that they were not delivered according to time, and he had lost the sale of them in consequence^ Norrnaa Gorton was -called as to the . present value of oats, but was not examined, as the value was admitted. This concluded the plaintiff's ease. • The defence was that the oats were to be delivered in: such lots as might be requtted by defendant, at such rates as woura^allow him to make a certain profit per bushel, and the last lot were delivered wlihout the permission or order of defenoant. . • .^ t>. M. Brooks, tramway contractor for the WelHngton-Manawatu railway, deposed to agreeing to take up to 100 bags -of oats if he could get sale for them ; .sent for 20 bags, but didn't get them in time, had to get theia elsewhere. Both counsel having addressed the •court, His Worship summed up at length. Jt was not, he said, quite clear whether the alleged contract was made, but if so • the defendant had broken it. He thought the plaintiff had not made out his case, and he must therefore give judgment for the defendant, «ach side to pay nis own. costs. Prior and Sandilands y Bobert Parr., Judgment summons for £6 6s Adjourned' from last court day. Mr Cooke appeared for plaintiff. , Defendant 3 appeared and -asked for a farther' adjournment on: account of his counsel, Mr : Fitzherbertj again not being present. Mr Cooke objected, unless the amount of claim was deposited. His Worship said the difficulty would be that if the case was disjposed of there «ould not be a rehearing. Me thought defendant ought tobave an opiportunity of having hiscounseU Mr Cooke still objecting to an adiournment he was ■allowed to call defeudanti x . . Bobert Parr deposed to being unable to jay the clauni filed about two years ago^ since which time his son carried on the business; his son kept the house, and witness did not get wages from him, but only a little pocket money ; the furniture belonged to his wife, except st few things named; if bills had been paid it was out of his son's money ; couldn't raise the amount of the claim if lie were to try, &nd didn't consider he owed it at all. Adjourned till next court day and the •court then closed. - . v■;