Feilding R.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume XII, Issue 111, 12 March 1891, Page 3

Feilding R.M. Court

Wednesday, March 11, 1891. ' •' • (Before Major Tuke, R.M.) (The Assessment Court cases were adjourned sine die, as Major Tuke had not been appointed.) DEBT CASES. A. and J. B. Pringle v. John Newman; claim £3 2s. Mr Prior for plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff and costs 9s. Joseph Lloyd v. M. Hastie; claim £6 14s 6a. Case struck out. Counsel's fee of 21s was allowed. Thos. Hirst v. Gr. Harney; claim £6 12s lid. Mr Eichmoad for plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff and costs 10s, solicitor's fee 21s. Sarhev. Edward Hewitt ; claim £6 6s 10d", Judgment for plaintiff and costs ■30s and solicitor's fee 21s. H. Paleuski v. D. McKnight ; claim £2S 15s 9d. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff. Judgment by confession and solicitor's fee 425. ' A. and J. B. Pringle v. Petersen.; claim . £9 11s 4d. Mr Prior for plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff and costs 10s, solicitor's fee 21s. F. Klink v. G. Richards; claim £5. Mr .Prior for plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff and costs 6s, solicitor's fee 21s. S. Henson v. Thos. Fraser ; claim £3 16s 6d. Mr' Prior for plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff and costs 9s. - Rathff Bros. v. Jas. Wells; claim £13. - Mr Prior .for plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff and costs 235, solicitor's fee 21s. Thos. Hirst v. Harry Hughes; claim 21s id. JVJr Richmond for plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff and costs 12s. Same v. S. Kenzie ; claim 39s sd. Judgment for plaintiff and costs 10s. Same v. Pehara; claim £4 10s lOd. ■ Judgment for plaintiff and costs 10s. Same v. H. T. Martin ; claim £3 4s lid. Judgment for plaintiff and costs 14s. Isaac Churcher y. A. Petersen ; claim .£2O 4s 6d for wool. Mr Sandilands for plaintift. Judgment for plaintiff and costs 20s, solicitor's fee 2 ls. S. J. Thompson v. Luke Ward ; claim 16s. Mr; Prior for plaintiff. Judgment! for plaintiff and costs '6s. "■ ' i J. and W. Cook v. X, E. Carey ; claim £10 16s 6d. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff, andMr J. Herbert Hankins for defendant. This was a claim for cutting firewood. Win. Cook, laborer, deposed : He had agreed to cut ,25 cords at ss ; was under "the. impression this was 4 feet lengths; -cut 12 cords, and then knocked off to get settled for that amount ; Mr Carey said he wuuld give' 6s for '6 /tet wood; afterwards agreed to cut 4 feet at 5s 6d per cord up to 50 ; he never found any fault with the work; 29 cords of 4 feet had been cut ; the wood was cut on Carey's property ; he said they were not to be particularly about the length, and they could put the tops in. Cross-examined by Mr Hankins: His son could tell how much wood was out. John Cook, son of previous witness, deposed : He claimed payment for 29 cords of wood at 5s 6d ;• -they were only to split the barrels of the trees, and the limbs might be put in ; measured the wood with Mr JVlaclntyre ; Carey, came 2 or 3 times a week when they were cutting; he saw the wood stacked and founds no fault ; had applitd twice for payment, but Mr Carey was engaged and -could not go and look. Cross-examined : The firewood was for the 'Longburn Freezing Works ; was told uot'to be particular about a few inches; iept'the reoord of the wood cut " in our lead"; was' sure tuey had-cut 29 coeds ■8 x4 x 4'; they were properly stacked •until the sheep knocked the sticks away and ''let the stacks down; the sheep did not • carry away the wood ; the £3 was paid for the first lot ; there was to be no -clearing up ; they were to cut as near the fence.as possible where good trees were available ; went to Mr Sandiiands, because payment luid been refused. Ke-exaininod: When they left there were 29 cords of wood in the stacks. • J). . Maelntyre, laborer, deposed : He had' beeu employed by young Cook; cut the 4 leet lengths 29 cords, at least that was what they left there ; it was in stacks of ■£„ I^," or more cords, according to what the tree would go; when they were S -cords off being finished Carey rode ' through ; supposed he looked at the wood; I had no conversation with Carey as he .(witness) was not the contractor; ha,u -assisted to stack and measure the wood ; saw Carey on the Friday after they bad .finished;. Carey refused, saying the wood was " too large and too long" ; told Carey they would try and get the money from him some other way; received a note shortly afterwards. Cross-examined: Was only a' wages' man ; did not think any 6 foot wood was in the stacks; would swear on all 'the Bibles ever made -there were no 6 feet pieces in. '• Mr 'Hankins, for the defence, -aid his client was under contract to supply wood for the Longburn Freezing Company, and called Richard Carey ,-,who deposed he was a sheepfarmer, residing at Bunnythorpe, agreed to supply the Longburn Freezing ' Company with certain firewood ; plaintiffs agreed with witness to cut firewood ; they cut 12 cords at ss, for which he paid £3 ; made a new arrangement with them to cut at us 6d per cord, 4 foot lengths; was too busy to go and inspect the wood because he was grass sowing ; after that got the summons ; the wood was not cut according to contract and unfit for the Freezing Works ; ii was too large — 6 feet long — and would not go into the furnace. Cross - examined : Thought he was treated badly . by being summoned ; thought the men could have waited a couple of days ; was too busy to go and measure up the wood ; did so about 10 days afterwards ; had said that if Cook would go down and make the firewood fit for use he would pay him and save trouble. ' Charles "Woolford deposed : He was an experienced wood cutter ; had examined 28^ cords in Carey's paddock on Monday; all the cords had different lengths ; the maximum diameter at some of the pieces was 20 x 12 ; it was disgraceful and not fit for anything; produced his measurements showing 22£ cords, and it would cost £2 to put it to that. Cross-examined : On the average there were 3 or 4 pieces oyer 6 feet in each cord. Alfred Ruff deposed : He had a rough look at the firewood in Mr Carey's paddock ; had measured tha cords with a rod that morning ; the contract to cut 4 feet lengths bad not been carried out ; it was the roughest lot he had ever seen in the colony. * 'Cross-examined: Had never seen-such timber used for firing the 6awmill engines* "By the Bench r.fjlome of the wood was only fit to throw away ; £% wa6 a reasonable charge Jo F sort and re-stack the timber. - This wap the case for the defence. •Counsel naving addressed the Court, v The £ a Y e .judgment. The contrftcviad been carelessly performed, but hegave 'judgment for £.6 18s and costs 2gfc,' soli o^ 0 ?' 8 f ee> 2ls, witnesses, 7s. " C C. 'Patterson v.JL Axup; claim £12 ss. ■Mr ; PrW'f6r plaintift and. Mr Sandilands ftr defendant. This was- a . claim for feJhiMJf 20 abres:bf bush m-J.889. j. Mr Sancb'landfr applied for an adjourn-

ment to get the evidence of Mr Owen, a surveyor, who was sent up to measure the ground. Mr Prior objected, and the R^M. ejected to go on with the ease. Charles Patterson deposed : He had felled certain bush on Axup's small run at Pohangina ; 20 acres had been felled in December, 1889; the bush had been since burned by a person who had recently bought the run ; had freqaently asked.for payment, and had been paid £12, including £5 paid by Mr Richards ; on the 3rd instant Axnp had promised to pay " to-morrow," but bad not done so ; this was the first time he had heard there was any doubt as to the measure- ' ment ; Axup had told him the Govern- , ment had allowed for improvements on account of the bush felled ; claimed £4t for board and residence for land speculators Axup brought up "to sea the land ; there was no accommodation for travellers except the residence of witness ; Axup told the people he brought up that he (Axup) would settle for their board'; Axup had stayed there himself time after time ; charged for two days labor at 10s a day,, when he was employed to act as a guide to a drayman. By the R M: : The land had never been measured by Axup, but he was satisfied with the measurement of the witness. Cross-examined : Kept no books to ! show particulars of the charges for board ■ and lodging. P. Richards deposed : He was a storekeeper, residing in Peilding ; had recently purchased a property from Mr Axup ; did not think he had paid proportionately ; had bought by a lump sum ; Axup had told him 30 acres were felled by Patterson. This was the case for the plaintiff. Mr Sandilands, for the defence, said that plaintiff had no right to recover in respect of the bushfelling contract as he was an uncertificated bankrupt. In reply, Mr Prior contended that his client was entitled to recover for his bodily labor. The R.M. recalled the plaintiff. The arrangement was only a verbal one; agreed to fell from 20 acres to 60 ; the Crown Ranger told him he had allowed Axup 20 acres for the work done by plaintiff. The R.M. said he would decide the case in equity. There was co doubt the map was entitled to be paid for the bushfelling. As to the claim for board and lodging, he should send in an account ; he would not allow this, but he would allow the 20s for labor. Verdict for i'B'sB, costs 235, witness ss, solicitor's fee 21s. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. S. J. Thompson v. P. Dowdall ; claim £9 14s 7d. Mr Prior for plaintiff. No order made. S. J. Thompson v. Jensen and Derby ; claim £'68 17s 4d. Air Prior for plaintiff, and Mr Sandilands for defendant. J. Jensen- deposed : He had been in business in Feilding ; his wife purchased the sections where the forge and private house stand ; the house was built with her money. Mr Sandilands objected to this line of examination, as these matters were factwhich had occurred prior to the judgment. Examination continued: The land had been- sold with the exception of thai where the forge stands ; Mrs Jensen wa.now working the flaxmill ; was not now in partnership with Derby ; Mrs Jensen bought the mill from the creditors ; could not say how his wife got the money ; he got a couple of lots from her own people, was now being paid LI a-week by his wife. Re-evamined by Mr Sandilands : M • J n an advanced the money to go into the imJl by mortgaging' her property, and to keep the flaxmill going she had since to sell it ; lost all he possessed in the partnership with Derby. By the Court : Lived with his wifr, whom he paid 12s ; that is he had 32s aweek; was not at present at work ; could not make an offer. Arranged to be paid LI a-month, with no alternative. S. J. Thompson v. R. B. Fearon ; claim L2l lls 9d. Mr Prior for plaintiff, and Mr Sandilands for defendant. R. B. Fearoii deposed : He was now working for Stevens and Gorton, at Palmerston, at L 2 per week ; was paying 6s a-week rent ; had 6 children and his wife to support ; had been receiving less wages (365) until a few months ago. Ordered to pay 10s - a month, with no alternative. G. W. Hill v. A. J. Locker ; claim L 5 ss. Mr Prior for plaintiff. Judgment for . plaintiff and . costs 255, solicitor's fee 21s.

(For conUnuation of Heading Matter see fourth page. )