Feilding R.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume XII, Issue 37, 11 September 1890, Page 2

Feilding R.M. Court

♦ _ WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1890, (Before Mr' Brabant, 8.M.) Kir ton and Curtis v John Coffey ; claim 245. Judgment for plaintiff and costs 7s, Manchester Boad Board v frank Palmer ; claim £2 Bs. Judgment for plaintiff and costs 14s. T. B. Chamberlain v Hare Hughes ; claim £d 2s. Mr Prior for plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff and costs 11s. F. Owen v Boori Bangiheneu j claim £51 10s. This was a claim for surveying: 1 certain blocks of native land. Defendant admitted he was liable, but only for apart of the claim as other owners were liable with him. He asked the Court to» let the claim stand over for a time until he could communicate with such others, Mr Sandilands said in reply that defend' ant ordered the surveys to be made with the others, which was an order for the survey of the whole block. Mr Owenhad paid a considerable portion of this, money in expenses. Defendant was al- * lowed a month to make his arrangements. Judgment for plaintiff and costs 435, solicitor £$ 3s, ' Judgment was here given in the case, Trimble v Phippin, heard last court-day. This was a claim for balance of Jgll 7e6d, being deficiency on the re-sale of a horse sold at auction by Mr Trimble, and purchased by Mr Phippin for £13, The auctioneer was entitled to sue in his owb name. Plaintiff was entitled to recover on both the law and facts. Judgment for plaintiff and costs 325, solicitor's fee 21s r witnesses 435, Appleton Donaldson v Milton Orbell ; claim £13 15s. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff and Mr Prior for defendant. It wasaßked that this case might be put down to the bottom of the list. Ultimately & was settled to go on, and Mr Sandilandscalled the plaintiff, who deposed : He was ' a laborer lately residing at Birmingham j his claim was for working at underscrub- ' bing at 25s per week ; if he worked any week defendant was not working he was to receive 20s ; worked 4 weeks at 25s per week ; defendant gave plaintiff 28 acre* underscrubbing at 7s per acre; the work was done and passed by Mr Wishaw, who* had the contract for falling the bush ; when the land was measured there were 25 acres; defendant said he could not pay plaintiff then because he wanted the money to pay for falling the bush. Cross-examined: Had known Orbell asnumber of years, and had been at school with him ; knew he had taken a contract to fell bush ; was told so by defendant, who did not ask plaintiff to go in to thecontract with him ; defendant asked him. to go and work with him; Orbell had. told him to clear out as he did not want him ; heard Wishaw mention about * paper, but never a»w it ; never saw a. written paper, and defendant never spoke to witness abont it ; nobody asked him to> sign it; agreed to take 20 acres from defendant of nndefscrubbing ; about 1 »3f an acre had been done, which should. ' r come out of the claim for 25 acres ; had. seen a lxmu in the camp; did not know his name was Nolan ; he used to come ia at night to have a yarn; he had a tent of his own; there had been a conversa-. tion between plaintiff and defendant, but Nolan did not hear it; did not pay hiscoach fare up; did not know defendant had paid it ; Orbell had paid his (witness) hotel bill at Birmingham ; did not know: that these stuns were paid on his account as a partner in a contract. Re-examined: Had been a week at th» hotel ; during the week Orbell found the , food because plaintiff was to be paid so> .much per week and his keep; had no* signed the contract; When the land was., measured by plaintiff and Wishaw, defendant said when he told him the qnan tity, " all right" ; had never received any particulars of what had been paid for him. at the hotel. T. H. Wishaw deposed: He was afarmer and contractor at Birmingham ; * ■ had let Orbell some 100 acres of underscrubbing (more or less) ; Orbell signed the contract (produced) ; he did not say whether he had any mates; knew Don- ' aldson was working there, defendant at the beginning of the contract said "Donaldson was no good and he would shunt him"; told Orbell he best let a piece to> Donaldson; the work had been passed it was done in a very fair manner ; Donaldson was supposed to do 20 acres, but when they came to measure it np there* were 25 acres less about one acre ; Orbell and witness are not on speakinp terms j there had been a row in the camp. Cross-examined : When the contract was signed he would not swear plaintift was present in Dunn's house ; had only known the two parties to the suit since-. , they took the job. By the Bench ; Plaintiff was worth 20s or 25s a week and his food; was^ employing plaintiff at present at 20s a week and keep. . This was the case for the plaintiff, and for the defence Mr Prior called Milton Orbell, the defendant, who de> posed : Had known plaintiff, for a number of years ; had seen each other off and on aver since they had left school ; had brought plaintiff to work with him 1 as mates ; Baird and Show, at Birmingham*, said they didn't care for Donaldson in their camp; had taken the billet of underscrubbmg from Winshaw; Donaldson said he did not think it necessary for him. to sign the agreement; always looked: upon him as his working mate; badworked before as mates at Bartholomews^ had never paid him wages; after plaintiff" had been taught how to work in the busk he (plaintiff) found he could earn 25s st, week as wages ; after Donaldson left far a time he came back and went to work; agrtin on the 20 acres; when Wishaw measured the line he took in about 2: acres which had been done by witness - offered to pay plaintiff £7 for the 20 acres which he refused; he wanted £13, Bs^ had never agreed to pay plaintSE wages.! Cross-examined : PJbj stiff was to get. half the money out of the job*; (witness: acknowledged having struck plaintiff, andHaid it waß for telling lies.) This concluded the evidence^ and both, " counsel decided to leave the case in the? hands of the Bench. His Worship having summed up, said he was satisfied that Orbell was the contractor and Donaldson only working for him. Judgment was Labor £3 and 24 acres at 7s,.total £11 8s with coals, witness' expenses and. coun* sel's fee. Mr Prior aßked for a month forr | payment of the money. Mr Sandilands [ consented, and an order was made accordingly. W. Light v John Lanff ; daim £& 4* for board and residence. Mr Prior for plaintiff. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for amount claimed and costs ha .u " Per ?°" T C ' H * R utoven; claim j £10, the value of a dog. Mr Prior for- [ plaintiff, and Mr Sandilands for defendant. Mr Sandilands argued that tke case could not proceed under the present form of plaint, as the plaratiff appeared as the owner, and had not shown that he was only a bailee. His Worship suggested amending the plaint, but Mr SandUandß- , raised a legal objection, bat ultimately ' ; .John Henry Shaw-Perrott deposed to, being son of ttte proprietor of the Sandon/ Hoter; Mrs England, on leaving the colQny about 12 months ago^asked witness; to take carer of the dog ; defendant took* :-x\*<. fcney tarth* Snuaal and took H under bj§

care ; on Mrs England's return the dog. was a black retriever, was not tc IVbe found. Cross-examined : Never told defendant he would give him the dog ; defendant showed witness a telegram from Halcombe to say the dog had been accidentally poisoned; this was about 3 months after the claim was made for ths return of the dog ; witness had not sued by Mrs England's direct instructions ; the amount of the claim was Mrs England's valuation. Re-examined : Had never let any one have the dog as a matter of gift. Dixon Kanes deposed to knowing the dog which he described, and gave ita extreme value at £8. Cross-examined : Arriyed at the value of the dog from appearance ; a fair value would be about £*2, from that to £3. O. H. Buthven deposed to having possession of the dog nine months ; it was made a present of to him by plaintiff Miss England came and demanded the dog, and witness offered to let heir have it if he was, paid the expenses of its keep ; plaintiff afterwards demanded the dog and he told him the sarqe ; got a telegram from Halcouibe to say it had been poisoned ; it had been left there temporarily with Mr Pope. Cross-examined : Didn't tell plaintiff he would go and get the dog; knew that Mrs England had the dog before she went away, and that it belonged to her ; witness did not take a fancy to the dog, and did not say he would like to have it as a companion; did not understand the dog belonged to Mrs England after she left ; wouldn't have given 10s for the dog as it had been a great sheep worrier, and had teen castrated for that reason. James Bennett, blacksmith, of Sandon, was present when the conversation was held about the dog, and corroborated the last witness' evidence. Both couasel having addressed the Court at some length, His Worship gave judgment for defendant, each party to pay his own costs. Pybns v Tuck. Heard last court-day and nonsuited pending the evidence of Mr Barnes, the valuator. Claim £6 4s. Mr Prior for plaintiff and Mr Sandilands for defendant. Mr Sandilands cited from the Stamp Act, and contended that the valuation in question could not be adxnitted in evidence as the document had been insufficiently stamped. Mr Prior said he was quite prepared to have the document impounded or excluded from the evidence. His Worship thought the Clerk should send the document to the Deputy Commissioner of Stamps to ascertain if it was of such a nature as to require a stamp or not. He would carefully consider the ■whole case and give his decision next court-day. ._____„