Feilding R.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume XI, Issue 150, 12 June 1890, Page 2

Feilding R.M. Court

r--. • - Thursday, Junk 11, 1890. (Before Mr Brabant, R.M.) Jas. Bowater v Geo. Bundle. — Claim £8 14s 6d. At the request of Mr Sandilands for defendant, the case was adjourned to the 9th July, the defendant being detained at Otaki as a witness at an inquest. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. M. Keen v Geo. Robinson.— Claim £2. -At the reqnesi'bf Mr SandilaMs for plaintiff the case was adjourned until Jpdy 9. Samuel Sidet v J. Trwih.-^Claim „£22 ISs.Mr Cooke for plaintiff and Mr Sandilands for defendant. £14,2sJ_<J ; hadjbeen paid into, Court. A set off was made for two totara trees valued at £5 by defendant. This was a claim for felling and underscrubbing 13 acres of bush at 85s pei acre at Onga. ■■-. - S- ■ S. Sidet deposed : He was a settler at Kiwitea j JB. Irwin, had taken [up a deferred payment section, and offered to sell it to plaintiff ; gave Irwin .£ls. as part of the purchase money ; paid £46 altogether; the Government would not consent to the transfer; showed the defendant the.ietter; had felled 18 acres of bush on tbe, land 17 chains by 8^; it was heavy bush; felled everything ; the Bame kind of bush had been let by Mr Burton last year at 38s and 37. 6d this year; Mr Chamberlain pays 33s for felling everything up tb five feet, for the latter he would have to pay 39s or 408; the two totara trees were lying down ; thought it was a pityvtcLhnrn them ;. as one was rotten witness split the other into stabs ; Bathe's son cut the stabs ;. this is the] first he heard of Irwin making a clam for the totara. tree. Cross-examined: All the stabs are> there that he split; Irwin did not tell 4iim to split them. The R.M. asked if there was any claim made for the stabs. - -Mr Cooke said his client had ito pay Bathe half the stabs for his labor. Cross-examined : There waa a: natural - clearing within the. bush felled ; the bush was heavier where he felled it; the clearing was of a wedge shape, about 2£- chains; - the . bush felled was 17 chains by B£ ; reckoned the clearing in and allowed two acres off; there was no guess work in his measurement; (plaintiff drew a plan of the word); Burton's land was in the Feilding Block and on the other side of river; Irwin's land, is in the Ongo Block on this side of the river,; Chamberlain 'a land is within a few chains of Irwin's. Duncan Mcßetb deposed : He, was a. . farmer at Kiwitea ; had helped plaintiff to measure some bush on Irwin's land, about 14 acres ; had been over the bush before. it was felled; made an allowance of 2 acres for the clearing ; there were a few trees here and there on the clearing; this was felled by Sidet (plan -was. handed to witness who confirmed its correctness); was not a professional, but could measure Bmall pieces of land; the value for the work was 32s 6d^as the -place was out of the way; Sidet. had put in a drain to a swamp,; and that would make his work worth 35s per acre^the bush hallvsincfr been burned ; it was a good burn. Cross-examined : Measured the land with Sidet; did not know a great deal about measuring . bush ; had done in tho best way it could be done ; there was no guess work except about the two acres ; there is no road there the .witness knows, of; oould not say* any "of "thfef- felling waet on a road li6e ; thought 35s was just enough until he saw the drain ; provisions had to be packed in ; Chamberlain's land is -middling rough; rougher; .than- this;. Taylor and Irwiii _ land was much abcrafe the same ; the bush waß about the same ;. what would be a, fair, price for one would bejfair for the othei*, only Taylor's wasnearer the metalled .road. Re-examined : vDidnbfcknbw there was: a road line at Irwin's ; valued bush felling on Tayloi ,, f-.at;32s 6d, but sometimes contracts were taken cheaper. W. E. Chamberlain deposed : He knew : the bush in question ; had seen the piecewhich was felled ; witness was paying "335. to 35s for everything up. to 5 feet, ta^ng: the latter it' 'would be ,36s br 378.per acre ;. there were a few dry trees on the clearing j would be worth to cut them down ;.sey.er»l trees were about three feet through j '- Cross-examined : Witness' land was oa the opposite side of the river; did not know the bush was heavier there ; .did not. measure Irwin's bush ; was hunting oattte when he saw the underscrubbing ; did not make a special' Visit. Had been through a deal of bush i_L his time; . •..;••; William Bathe, farmer near Mr Irwin's,, knew the bush; saw it before^t wasfellect and after ; it was worth 30s an acre up to--3 feet ; for eyerythuig 35s per acre ; Sidet. made a good job of the falling and underserubbihgj it was burned from witness' bush; was often over the land; therewere plenty of tree 3 3 feet through. ! ' Sidet, plaintiff, was recalled i Allowed! 1£ chains in places for the . river ; knew nothing about a road; had felled 3 or 4 trees oyer 6 feet—^ 2 axe handles and: a. hedf— felled everything '" an ' axe handle: high"; had only scaffolded bnetree; Xi: This was the case tor thojiaintiff. Mr Saridilands teid what His' Worshipi had to decide was really the amount -of bush felled;; he wo»ld.prQv» that the-, measurement given was erroneous; <gnd .the price charged too high. He admitted 9 acres and a fraction. . ?' V-v-.'-*-The .defendant, Eir Irwin t deposed ,: .Bad sold a piece of land to Sidet %t;Jb§uHo. taketit back again; .Sidet felled "tlie 'land, .on bis own responsibility ;. pleasured theland on Thursclaylast M-ith *W. -Phy n ani andß, Taylor, ..^who. went up to chain it and value what it was worthy they made it 9 acres at 2.5s per . acre ; had: '2s; years'" experience in bush ; the bush was scrubby of a light nature,7H*itb heavy tresis scattered about'; there was notmng.Lon.it but cabbage trew and toi grass, with; a few j scattered pines; '21s was a fair price for felling and scrabbing.this particular piece ; it would take 2 .Hays , at Saper day 'to, cut down the trees on the clearing ; allowed 25s pei* acre, the money paid into cpurt, Cross-exairnhed :. 'Bought the , lancl •(__ August last ; went; over the land Bidet had' fallen 1 about. two month? ago,; sold, it to Sidet last September,.be paying'_g4<} • .the Land Board refused to transfer it • was notsure wbether' it was" by a,le^t9r dated last October ; paid the £46 back in January ; Sidet' talked about the bush felled ; did not intend to : pay Sidet until be saw what; he ( had. done ; the sum paid into Court' is made up Of 9 acres/at 255, and two days labor for the clestring ; tha Land Board will count the bush knocked down towards the improvements? -, . . By ! the, Court,; Took; #46 from 1 Sidk for the land; subject-to itifeansfer by-th* Government ; delayed paying Sidet as he Was v waiting for hun to claim -it jlwKbn Sidet came for the money Jhe-tcM -Witness he (Sidet) had felled^some bush. WilliainPhyn, farai^at Beaeonsfiald, deposed : Last Thursday wentftp Ongb'to. examine the nature, of sopae bush that bad been felled, to measure T i^an<i assess ih& value Of the felling r(prodticedV^_gh sketch) ; he rdiie ib ap tri&£ uhttefc Mid *•■- --acres—9 aores and.B4 links, square ; they made the t^tal ,£l_H4ss 6d.^had 13 yearsexperience in the bish, working for himself and in conti-acts.;- the, land, could not be measurecr ihbro abci&aikely by them than by the plan dUtfe witness. Cross-examined^ Cbuitfndt say exaofly •when he last saw the land— -.probably

three years ago ; the land in question was the lightest on the river. By the Court:: Was to be paid for measUreing the land ; the heaviest trees were dose om the river bank; including the reserve there would be about 11 acres felled; Mr. Mcßeth's estimate would be correct if he measured those parts where there was ■only one tree or light scrub. Richard Taylor, settler, Ongo Block, deposed : He had been 12 years working in the bush; measured and valued the land at the request of Irwin ; witness' land was pretty much the same as Irwin's; the bush on the Ongo Block as lighter than that on the Birmingham Block; made the bush felled 10 acres 2 .perches; valued it at 25s per acre, because ii was some distance from a __et--alled road, and therefore yalued it higher; <(gave same evidence as W. Phyn.) This was the case for the defence. Mr Sandilands addressed the Court, ?and contended that the amount paid into <Court was sufficient. Mr Cooke having replied, His Worship .gave judgment for the plaintiff for ; _GlB .and costs .£4 13s, witnesses £2, Ba, less amount paid into Court. T. R. Taylor v. Piripe Panapa.— Claim •JE3O 16s. Mr Sandilands for plaintift. Mr Taylor having proved the claim, (which was on a P.N.), judgment was given for plaintiff and coste.4os; solicitors fees £3 3s. E. Reed v, Maria Oliver. — Claim £6. Mr Mellish for plaintiff and Mr Sandilands for defendant. Mr Sandilands applied for an adjournsnent, because one fof his principal witnesses was away In Sydney. Mr Mellish contended that as it was a <claim fot. wages it would be a hardship the case to -be adjourned, Sydney was a long way A set-off had "been filed. Mrs EI Reed deposed: She sued for 8 •weeks wages. at 15s per week; defendant lad refused to say, saying she would keep \ it off Mr Reed's board; had given no authority to Mrs Oliver to do this; when j leaving Mrs Oliver's service applied for a settlement ; told Mrs Oliver she could not .afford to do this; Mr Reed could settle ibis account in five or six weeks ; told Mrs Oliver she (plaintiff) would sue heir ; her wages %as her separate property ; Mr jjeed gave an. I O U for what he owed, j Cross^examimid;' When she took the situation her husband came with' her ; occupied the same room, and had his board at .the hotel; did not bring a pic;fcure to -.he hotel, but Mr Reed did; did not ask Mrs Oliver to lend her £6, and say sbe would give security over the picture, -kbew Mrs Batchelor, who was taken to Mrs Oliver's when she (Mrs B.) had her leg broken; showed Mrs Batchelor Art Union tickets for the disposal of a picture ; had an authority from the ■Colonial Secretary to hold the Art Union; Mr Reed has finished his contract, but lias not paid Mrs Oliver ; the latter had returned the IO U. . Re-examined : No one else was present •when she was talking to Mrs Oliver. Mr Sandilands submitted Mrs Reed ■could not recover under the Married Woman's Protection Act. Mr Mellish thought the objection was perfectly absurd. The R.M. ruled that sections 4 and 7 of the Act made it clear that a married woman could sue for her earnings. Mr Sandilands, for the- defence, called Mrs Oliver, who deposed: She had employed plaintiff as housemaid for eight -weeks; had understood that Mrs Reed's wa^es were to go against her husband's ijoard, at the rate of 15s per week ; Mrs It. el had applied for money to go to Wellington; Mrs Reed had offered her an XO.U. signed by Reed, but did not keep it ; did not lend Mrs Reed the money ; Mrs Reid offered witness 2 ticuets in the Art Union as interest on the money to be lent; Mrs Reed was agreeable witness' should keep the £6 against Reed's board, xmtil she found she (Mrs Oliver) would not lend her money to go to Wellington. By the Bench: When she engaged Mre Beed the latter was at Foxton ; engaged her by letter ; Mr. Reed had brought her lusband with her unknown to witness ; Mrs. Reed asked if he could stay until Heed got work ; had no conversation with tbe husband about his board. John Taylor, cook at the Empire Hotel, ■deposed: He knew both parties to the suit ; Mrs Reed told witness she would be in Mrs Oliver's debt owing tp ber husband's board. This was all the evidence for the defence. Mr Mellish having addressed tbe Bench. Judgment was given for defendant, .costs 3s, solicitors fee 21s. ~7 J. Belfit v W. J. Gamblin.— Claim £5. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff. This was a claim for the purchase, money for the body of a dray. Joseph Belfit deposed : He had sold the body of a dray to defendant* the body of the dray had been lying for some months in the|Corporation yard adjoining Saywell's coach yard; valued it at £5; offerred £3 10s but witness said he wanted M ; Gambhn;said " All right I'll take it"; nothing was. said about " taking it out in work " it was tp.be paid, for in cash. Cross-examined : Had ■. never tried to sell it before ; had got some potatoes from jplaintiff,.abo.ut"l_f cwt,.l sack, for 7s; was witting to allow him for it; would.alhyw Is 6d for a hammer handle and 6d for a ' sack. '..-,.'. G.'-H. Saywell deposed : He was a] .coaehbuilder resident in Feilding ; he •considered the article was worth £4 10s. . • .. For .the defence Mr Cooke called "W. J. Gamblin,who deposed that plaintiff had told -him there; was an old body he (defendant): might work up.; got Belk -to come and value it; Belfit said be wovdd take it out in repairs for 263 10s; Belk said it was' not worth half of three pounds ; Belfit said he did not want tbe noo icy, repairs would do just as well ; describe! a conversation 1 which had taken place when Belfit had said there was no money to pay on the job as it would be a start for bim. Cross-examined : : Had bartered . away the bddy at a value of .68. ; : ; Mrß Stanton, iiter of the preyious witness, deposed : She heard a conversa- . tioh^on. Sunday afternoon ; Belfit said he would do all he could for .her brother, and the old body' would be a Start as there was no cashto^piy-fdr itV . John Belk, coaehbuilder, deposed : He saw the dray body;, it was worth almost nothing ; Gamblin said he had promised to give £3 or £3 10s for it ; said it was too mnch. . I _ ' ■' \ .;'., j'. R. Parr, wheelright,.gave evidence. Verdict for -plaintiff for __2 15s 6d and costs 40s. -'■'■■ '''■'■'" At the conclusion of the sittings of the Court Mr Brabant, the R.M., said tbat his experience in Feilding was that witnesses who were called; to give evidence appeared to consider it was their duty to do the best they could for their side without considering the high obligations placed -upon them by^ their- oaths taken in the witness box; r. The Court then adjourned.