Feilding R.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume XII, Issue 49, 9 October 1890, Page 3

Feilding R.M. Court

Wednesday, October 8, 1890. {B3foTOMrßraWtet,R.Mo , _ Bailey Bros. v. Taraua Utiku.— ■ Claim 14s 3d. Mr Sandilkids for plaintiffs Mr Walter Bailey proved the claim. -Judgment for plaintiff and costs 16s. Solicitors fee £1 Is- 4 „ , G. G,. Death YJ. B, Davis. Adjourned until next court day. W. H. Salter v'<? Weage.<— Claim £19 Ssld. Mr Prior for plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff and costs £2 12s, solicitor's fee J3l Is. ■>. : «John,Benseman;V G: Saunders — Claim £2 2s. Mr Prior for plaintiff. Judgment 4for plaintift and costs 16s. Trustees of Donkin's assigned estate v D. E. Amesbury— Claim £1 15s ,$d.. Mr JRattray appeared for the' trustees. Judgment for plaintiff and costs 6s. „ ; Same v H. Martin--Claim £$ 7s 4d, JSI paid into court- Judgment for balance ind costs lls r to be paid at the rate of 20s ;per month. ■-- r Same v F. Klink— Claim 12s. Judgfpr plaintiff and costs 65.: ; '"'• Same v B. Roake— Claim £1 4s 6d; •Judgment for plaintiff and costs 6s. W. G. Haybittle * J. T. Foster^Claim 13s lid;- Judgment for plaintiff to 2>e paid at the rate of 10s a months proirided the first instalment be paid in three ■days. ' ' "'■*'-'• •{': . ■■ ' ■>.-• '■. Samev B. Boake— Claim £3 19s 4d; Judgment for plaintiff and costs 6s.' (In this case Mr Sandilands appeared for "plaintiff.) Same y J. Anderson— Claim £1 3s 7d. -Judgment for plaintiff and costs 6s. His Worship referred to the case Pybus v Tuck— Claim £6 4, in which a docusnent had been submitted and since referred to. the Deputy Commissioner of stamps, who had decided the said document should bear a £1 stamp, and a penalty of £5 fine. Mr Prior said in the absence of his •client he would not feel disposed to pay *he fine, and hewould therefore leave the matter in the hands of the court, as if the ■document had neyer been put in. A nonsuit was. entered up. A. Callaghah and others v L. Gr.Ackeranan—Claim £5£ ; !ls lOd. Mr Prior for and Mr Sandilands for defendant. This was a claim for bushfelling. | A. Callaghan deposed as to the particu- i lars of the claim ; defendant had seen that ! ' the. underscrubbing was done and had Tisited the work every week .admitted he had made a good job of the work; just before the completion of the work defendant had directed plaintiffs to Ksat down a clump of rimu trees over four feet through, for which a separate charge ■of 4s a tree had been made ; for cutting the lines they had charged 245, three men for one da^y ; had applied for payment two or -three times ; defendant wanted' to enter into another contract to fell all trees over -4 feet ; had' offered to dp so after the first contract was paid for ; his excuse for nonjayinent was because he had not raised Ids mortgage money on the land ; he had not complained of the work, out had to give them an extra Is per "acre for making such a good job of it. Cross-exainiued : The plaintiffs and had measured off the lines together — 18 chains along the road, 2b chains along the bottom, 32f along rthe Aorangi Road, 12f .on the botjtom line;, had fallen half the road in those jneasures ; the surveyor calculated the 'measurement, as they could not make dt up themselves ; would be surprised to learn that some eaphns . were left standing; ..cut all the vines rouud the trees jthey felled ;• would ' be surprised to leaTn !fchey had only felled 39f acres. Re-examined : This is the first time ■■witness heatd the area -was disputed.. ' ; ißy ithe Bench: Defendant made no • collections to the .way the work was* done he left the contract. J. H. Weatherly,. a mate of previous deposed: Ackerman had gone .-on the ground several times and had iexpi;esßed his satisfaction with the work .as it done. He wanted them to take .another contract to fell the trees over 4 ieet through ; this . they had promised to do after they were paid, and returned irom another job they ha f l taken in the meantamo. For cutting lines he had either "been paid by the day, or 6<l per chain. 31 r Mountfort (seer.), an authorised surveyor, calculated. the. iarea. He make it 47 acres.; : ... •■■.-■', -,■'■■■■■■ .>'••'•. "•" ; .■■ Cross- exarained:; It was sometime last year the land' was measured. George Bishop, a mate of the previous witnesses, deposed : He was a party in the contract. His evidence confirmed that already, given. As Ackerman had "broken his contract to pay 50 per cent as the work proceeded, they were at liberty' to knock off when they liked. This was the case for the plaintiff. Mr Sandilauds for the defence, said he "would prove that only 39 acres, and 3 Toods, exclusiye of the road line, had been felled ; ■ also that the bush was "badly felled. He called. John G. Ackerraan, ; a aettler on the Waitapu Block, had agreed with plaintiffs they should fall ;«O acres more or less; had agreed witfe Mr Gicily, sur--veyor, of Marton, to measure the bush felled, and he -made it 39 acres 3 roods ; there was 32£ chains of road; told the contractors he had applied to the Clerk of theKiwitea Boad Board to allow for the felling on the usual terms of the JBoard; arranged to pay the contractors -whatever the Board paid him ; went and had a look at ihe work and found some bad work; Callaghan said he was sorry, it was his mate's fault. Cross-examined: Neyer pointed out to Callaghan some trees he wanted knocked down ; Had never said he was satisfied with the work; had told the plaintiffs that he was raising the money on mortgage and would pay them as soon as he got it. . . Ee-examined : But not in the state the "bush was now. By the Court : Did not pay the 50 per cent because he hadu't the money. Frank Owen, authorised surveyor, deposed : The area of a peace of land on the plan (produced) was 39 acres 3 roods bush feUed irrespective of the road. John Bensemen, settler, deposed: He had examined the bush, it was not TOllfelled. Cross-examined: Had examined, the bueh from the tigh places, and gone over a good deal of it. By the Court : Ackerman could not have seen that the konmis were standing when the job was finished, because the leaves had come out since. • David Hickford, laborer, Waitapu Block, deposed: Had been all over the bush; Ackenriari's -bushlalling was lather bad, had neyer seen any worse; the saplins are not cut clear -from the atumps. - . , Cross-examined: went over the land a month, ago, at Ackerman's request, because the work was not done according to specifications. - - This was the case for the defence, Mr , Sandilands addressed the Court arid reviewed the evidence* Mr Prior having replied, His Worship gave judgement for plaintiff— 4l acres 1 rood 22 perches, at 253 per acre,' £ol 14s 4d.; kss contra, XT 9s 2d 'total, £44 . os 2d ; costs, 4(ls ; <K)Ucitor, £3 ss. Himiona Te . Oha >.v 4- Campbell ; £10. Mr Sandilacds lor

ant. This was an action to recover a bay geldiug or its value £10. Judgement for defendant without costs. T. J. Smith v G. Saundeis £21 12s !"d. Judgement for plaintiff and costs. Trustees Ponkin's estate v W. Wenham, £2 17s Id; J. Anderson, £2 12s •sd; R. Dury, £13 3s 6d. A nonsuit was entered in each case as the agent, Mr Battray, was unable to produce in court the deed of assignment. The Court then adjourned. I

(For continuation of. Reading Matter see ' fourth page.) .