Feilding R.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume XII, Issue 88, 15 January 1891, Page 2

Feilding R.M. Court

Wednesday, January 14, -1891, (Before \!r Brabant. R.M.) UNDEFENDED CABES. Ai and J. B. Pringle v W. Barrett ; claim £1 6s .93. Mr Prior for plaintiff. Judgement for plaintiff and costs 14s. Thos. Cook v John Mason; claim £& 6s 6d. No appearance of either party. Case struck out. A. McEenzie v J. Pickering; claim £5 12s 6d. Case adjourned to next .courtday. S. J. Thompson v J. Munroe. Mr Prior for plaintiff. Defendant admitted, the claim. Judgment for £1 13s Id and costs and solicitors' fee 21s. S. J. Thompson vJ. Cockery ; claim £8 2a Id Mr Prior for plaintiff. Judgement for plaintiff and costs 15s, less 20s paid since summons was issued, solicitors fee 21s. DEFENDED CASES. •T, McFadyen v* H. Thomas Martin ; claim £2 10s. Mr Prior for plaintiff aud Mr, Richmond for defendant. Plaintiff deposed : He was a contractor; the claim was for 6£ days labor at 8-i per day in September. Defendant deposed he only allowed plaintiff 7s a-day ; he never worked more than 8 hours a-day ; alwajs paid his men 7s for 8 houra, and extra for nine hours at the same rate, . that is when he settled up ; p allowed 7s per every 8 hours overtime. Cross examined by Mr Prior:. Only , paid one man Ss for & hours ; he was a i good man and witness wished to keep him. C. Alex. Guthrie ' deposed : He had been working for defendant for 7s a-day of 8 hours ; ■ He confirmed the eyidence of the defendant. Judgement for plaintiff for £2 9s and cost 3 14s. - T. McFadyen v H. T. Martin and W* Marshall; claim £lo 12s 6d. Mr Prior for plaintiff and Mr' Richmond for defendants. This was a claim for balance on account rendered for underscrubbing about 82^ acres of busb at 4s ; this was reduced to £12 3s ; the original clitinv was for 100 acres, but was amended as stated. (A set off was put m exceeding the amount claimed). Mr Prior said he disputed the set off r because the items were personal, and not between the partnership and plaintiff. , Mr Richmond said the partnership had been dissolved and Martin was responsible for all debts ,aud received all monies duo to the late firm. Marshall did not appear at all. The R.M. said the destitution could have no practical effect on the case, ; because a cross action could be brought tor next Court day, and in th« meantime, -if 3 udgement went for plaintiff , execution would be stayed until the case was decided. ' Mr Richmond called the defendant,. Martin, who deposed as to the items of the set off ; (the receipted accounts- were produced) ; It was understood witness should pay them, and he had done so with the "understanding they should be deducted; when plaintiff came to wifcnoss' house ho .bought him clothes to go to work m ; it was am understood thing; that witness should get the stores and deduct- the amounts from Traces due to the men in the eaaip ; the accounts were paid by witness, who gave an order for the total amount oa his employer. Mrs Sarah Martin deposed ; She was wife of previous witness ; had heard M»i Patty , v gi ye orders for stores ; he had nothing but wJiat he stood up in when he came to her house . . . Alex. G-ufchrie deposed : Knew the parties to the 'suit ; Martin was responsible -for the stores; paid the accounts and stopped the mon*y out of the wages;" remeuubared a naan" named Hngh who worked at the undersornbbing after McFudyen had left ; Hughes was Working, instead of McFadyen. . '- - Crons-examined : Was working; by day work ; the accounts for stores were made out to each of them and seat k> Martin. Re-examined : The understanding was that the goods would not be supplied by^ the storekeeper unless Martin became responsible. , ' .Mr Prior - called" T. McFadgen, the plaintiff, who deposed : He went to work for Margin on the 22nd of September ; , was there 8 weeks ; had agreed to pay 12s a-w««kforhis board and lodging fallowed ■certain items in- the set off; young Martin worked 6 hours for witness ; had he asked for payment h« would have paid it; witness was the boss, not Martin (senr.) ; Martin had asked him to leave a half chain " fire line " near.the fence, because if the fence was damaged when the felling was going on Martin would have to pay for it; Martin wanted witness to take another contract, and as he declined Martin said. he would condemn his work and send Hughes over to cat the fire line,, which witness Had left at the order of Martin; the latter then said he would not pass the work, and charged 15s for Hughes' work in doing it; did not authorise Martin to pay his account at Ratliff Bros, ; did not authorise Martin t» pay the butcher's and the draper's accounts. .. ... . Cross-examined :- Sent a written: order generally for the goods to Batliff; heard Martin had paid Ratliff. . . Mr Richmond applied to have the case postponed until he could obtain the evidence of Ratlift. . . - The R.M. said there was no dispute as to the amount claimed. The dispute was as to the set-off. As to Batliff Bros/ account of Sil 9s 9d, there.was no dispute of the good* having been received. It was highly improbable that Ratliff would have supplied the goods to McFadyen. The defendant was entitled to theset-off. Judgment was therefore for the defendant and costs 3s, solicitor's fee 21s. H. L. Sherwill v A. Southey Baker ; claim £7 7s. This was. a claim for valuation of property. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff. . . H. L. Sherwill deposed: He was a valuer residing in Feilding; at the request of defendant had valued certain proper* ci, for which ha now claimed his fees. (Pxaintiff was cross-examined at great length by Mr Baker.) The defendant did not dispute the amounts, bot contended.. Mr^SherwiJl should sue tfe* persona whose properties had been valued. ' ' i Wm. Greig, farmer, ef Campbelltown, deposed : He hail gone te Mr Baker for some money ; there was nothing sa;id about valuation ; heard afterwards that Mr Sherwill had b#ao to hu place. l , Wm. . Condry, baker, Haleoinbe, deposed : Ha had applied te Mr Baker for a loan on hie property ; gava no authority to Mr Baker to employ a valuator. ' This wai the casa-for the plaintiff. Mr Baker addressed the Court, giving his line of defence. He then deposed that the enstrnn of the money-lenders was that unlesa loans. " went, through " no feee ware charged by valnators for their services. Ha gava a rmvm# \of his arrangement with Mr Sherwili. Mr Sandilands having »epliel, Judgment was veserved until the next s.t-mg day. F. Bsrry v D. McDonald ; claim £14 l«s Id. Jndgment far plaintiff and costs 295, to »0 paid 30» per month. ' J., H. Wackmore v rharles' Gurke • claim £1 19s 6d. Mr Prior"- for plaintiff and Mr Hawkins for defendant: Thj&

. was a claim to recover excess of charges over proceeds of a sale of a bull from the Pound: J. H. Blackinore, Ponndkeeper, deposed: A bull had been impounded on 13th of November last, and was sold for not, being redeemed ; the fees, &c, were JC'2 9s 6d ; the bull fetched at auction 10s; had written to defendant requesting him to release the bull; had received a reply from Gurke stating the biill was not his ; Cross-examined by Air Hawkins: His authority to act as Poundkeeper was in the minute book of the Council ; the bull was impounded oft the property of Mr Saywell, at Birmingham. G. C. Hill, Town Clerk, produced the minute book of the Borough Council, making the appointment of Mr Black■iiiore as Poundkeeper on the 7th February, 1889 ; witness deposed Blackmore had held the appointment since that date. F. Freeman, of Birmingham, looking after W, Saywell's place, saw the bull there; Mr Johns gave him orders to shoot it ; Johns was the owner of the bull before Gurke; Gurke told him he had bought the bull for ss ; took the bull to the pound. W. Green, of Birmingham, helped to ,-drive'the bull to the pound at the request of last witness. J. T. Foster, Ranger, saw Gurke at Birmingham respecting the bull ; Gurke told him" he had' bought the bnll for ss, but as he. had riot.paid for it, it was not his property. . Mr Hawkins, for the defence, called Carl Gurke, who deposed: He occupied land in Birmingham under a tenancy from the Crown ; has cattle on his premises ;. Freeman and- Green drove the bull into his place,' and iii the morning he drove it out on the road ; the, bull was not his ; the bull he bought from Jones has now at home P. Haggerty resided at Birmingham, held his land under a license from the Crown ; Saywell's land was 14 or 15 chains from his ; Saywell belongs to the same small farm association ; had known the bull for about three years ; he was everyman's bull when he was there, and everyone was very glad to get him. ' Geo. Eichardson, settler, Birmingham, lived $of a mile from Gurke's ; knew the bull in dispute; it. was always roaming about. ' This was the ca?e for the defence. Mr Hawkins addressed the Court and Mr Prior replied. The B.M. said he would enter up a nonsuit,'so that the case may be brought up again, each party to pay his own costs. Another case against the same defendont for allo.wing the- bull to wander at large was withdrawn. Mr Hawkins applied for costs. The R.M. refused to allow these because it was partly the fault of defendant the case was brought. - , The Court then adjourned at 6.30 p.m. [The,- Court t resumed its sittings at 7 p.m., when the case of John'Stevens y W. M. Bundle, a case arising out of the sale of copies of the " Australasian Pictorial Atlas," was heard, defendant receiving a verdict. • A full report of this vase will appear in Saturday's issue. Several other cases were adjourned.]