Feilding R.M. Court.

Feilding Star, Volume XII, Issue 79, 20 December 1890, Page 2

Feilding R.M. Court.

Friday, Eecember 19. 1890. (Before Mr Brabant, R.M.) P Thomson v W Cook.— Claim £3 lis 3d. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff and costs 6s; to be paid at 6s per month. His Worship gave judgment in the case Priestley v Tuck. This was a case where plaintiff sued for the value of certain books lost in an botel at Halcombe, heard at a previous sitting of the Court. Having quoted from various authorities on the laws relating to mn -keepers the R.M. said the plaintiff oould not recover, and judgment was entered up for defendant. There were no costs. G. G. Death v J. R. Davies.— Claim £2 ls. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff and Mr Richmond for defendant. This case was heard in part laßt court day, and adjourned to enable the evidence of a certain witness to be taken. Mr Richmond applied to have the evidence taken of a new witness who would contradict a certain piece of evidence given by a witness at the first hearing. Mr Sandilands objected because the witness referred to had been for the plaintiff. Mr Richmond contended he had treated this person as an adverse witness. The R.M, said if it would avoid the chance of a re-hearing it would be as well to agree to hear the witness. W. Mills deposed: He knew plaintiff ; knew Death and Law wanted the use of Davies' boar, and Davis wanted to get rid of it on account of it getting among the lambs ; recommended Law to Davies because Law had a secure paddock ; Heard the pig had been delivered by Davies at Law's paddock ; the pig broke the fence and got out into witness' place; Law's and witness' sons took it out, and the pig becoming stubborn they left it on the road ; it came back again ; witness then shut it in the sheep pen ; sent for Davis, and Davis, his son, and witness came down and they castrated it at Davies' request and then let it go ; the pig was seen afterwards at different times in the neighborhood, did not know what became of it eventually. Cross -exanined : Was satisfied Dayies wanted to get rid of the pig ; had heard the pig was shot afterwards. : By the Court: The pig was turned loose at Davis' request ; the value of the pig as a boar was £2, as a bacon pig, if fattened up, it would be worth £3 ; Immediately after the operation it was not worth more than 355. George Smith Cawood deposed : He ! was a farmer at Makino ; was on Death's property that day ; saw the pig after it was delivered, it was at liberty in the | paddock ; heard no conversation between Death and Davis, or Law and Davis ; heard something about taking up a stab to let the pig through the fence. (Notes of the evidence given by Law last court day, was read by the R.M.) Mr Richmond said all he wished to prove was that Death was present when the pig was put in the paddock. Witness continued : Did not see the pig taken out of the cart because his attention was not attracted in that direc- ' tion. Counsel haying addressed the Court His Worship said the boar appeared to have been placed in safe custody in a paddock, during the lambing season, by the plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff and costs 20s, witnesses 17s. S. Sidet v W. Maitland.- Claim £2 13s 7d. Mr Prior for plaintiff, and Mr Richmond for defendant. This was a claim for an overpayment alleged to have been made in settling up a wages accouut. S. Sidet deposed as to the particulars of account between himself and defendant Sidet v Maitland and another. — Claim £3. The Court decided the settlements were fair ones in each case, and judgment was for defendants. A. McKenzie v H. Pickering.— Claim £5 12s 6d. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff and Mr Prior for defendant. A. McKenzie deposed : . He was a farmer residing in Feiidmg ; had worked with Hirst the butcher ; some months ! saw a sulky opposite Parr's, the coach builder ; found out H. Pa helor owned t ; ; saw him and offered £10 ss ; agreed to ' pay Parr 20s for repairs, bought the sulky and harness ; paid a cheque for £9, a Ll note and two half crowns ; did not take a receipt because he thought the cheque was sufficient, but Bachelor afterwards gave a receipt to Pickering, who was working in the same shop ; used the sulky on several occasions and lent it to Pickering and several others; sold the sulky to Pickering for Lll oa; had received on account Ld 12s 6d ; had applied for the balance, but brought it into court because he could not get a civil answer from defendant; had drawn an ordor m fayor of J. Bishop on the defendant for the amount but it was not honored. Mr Dyer, in the Bank of Australasia, identified the cheque for L 9 drawn by A. Mckenzie in favor of Bachelor. The cross-examination of the plaintiff was then gone on with : Had not gone to the owner of the sulky on behalf of Pickering : Pickering said if he (witness) did not want the sulky he would have it; it was Pickering who suggested a receipt should be got from Bachelor; told Bachelor to giye Pickering the receipt, because Pickering was to pay the full amount when he drew some money out of the P.O. Savings bank ; did not receive the whole of the moLey at one time from Pickering. This was the case for the plaintiff. Mr Prior, for the defence, called de fendant Who deposed : He was a butcher ; in May last was employed by Hirst, where McKenzie was also working : saw a sulky outside Parr's shop ; described the purchase ; had paid McKenzie £10 ss ; had paid the £1 to Parr ; when Bachelor was passing the shop, up to that time did not know him by sight; ifc was McKenzie who brought Bachelor in to give the receipt to witness ; McKenzie saw the receipt afterwards ; paid the £10 5s to McKenzie the day after ; McKenzie did not give him £1 to pay Parr ; at the time had money coming to bim and had saved money ; the only application McKenzie had made for money was by an order in favor of Bishop ; told Mr Sandilands that he did not owe McKenzie anything Cross-examined : had no bank account but kept money in the Post Office ; had the £10 5s by him at the house (Hirst's); it was getting on io six o'clock when McKenzie told him he had bought the sulky ; when he paid McKenzie the money only f he two of them were in the shop ; it was a week day. Re-examined : The trap was at Parr's seing repaired ; took possession of it there; having the article did not care so muob ibout the receipt ; when tbe trap was at McKenzre's he broke the shafts ; witness had it mended and paid for it ; lent the trap to many other people. By the Court did not know if the plaintiff lent the trrp to anybody ; paid the money, one £5 note and five £1 notes, the 5s was paid in silver. Robert Parr deposed : He was a coachbuilder; Mr Bachelor had asked him to repair the sulky ; met McKenzie, who told witness . the sulky would do for S l '■ :■ •

Pickering; told McKenzie Mr Trimble was authorised to sell the sulky ; McKenzie said they would see Bachelor and get it cheaper ; Bachelor told witness he was to look to Pickering for his money ; Pickering had paid his son (A. L. Parr) ; once ] Pickering had told him not to let McKenzie have it any more. Cross-examined: Was sure Bachelor telling him was the first time he knew the sulky was sold to Pickering; This was after Bachelor came out of Hirst's shop ; did not think it strange that the meeting should take place in Hirst's on tbe 25th and the receipt for £1 should be dated on the 21st; had seen McKenzie driving the trap ; did work for Pickering now. This was the case for the defence. Council having addressed the Court The case was adjourned to get the evidence of Mr Bachelor. The Court then adjourned.