Feilding R.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume XIII, Issue 103, 27 February 1892, Page 3

Feilding R.M. Court

« — Friday, February 26, 1892. (Before Mr Brabant, R.M.) Wrightson y Amesbury ; claim, £17 Is 6d. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff and Mr Prior for defendant. B. Wrightson deposed this was a claim for beer supplied from the brewery owned by his wife, to defendant ; the account had never been disputed. For the defence, D. E. Amesbury deposed he had not received a written notice of the assignment of the property and book debts of B. Wrightson to his wife ; when he received beer entered it into a day book ; admitted having received 92 kegs out of 117 charged in the account ; had paid £3 to settle the account. Cross-examined by Mr Sandilands: Had received a personal notice of the assignment of Wrightson's estate ; did not receive the kegs of beer personally ; had been sued by Mr Light for 22 bottles of rum ; his beer account had been running since ISSS. His Worship reserved judgment until this morning, which was as follows : — The objection raised by Mr Prior that the defendant had not received notice of the assignment of Jthe estate in writing, and stated that until such notice was given the assignor had the right to sue. In regard to the number of kegs delivered and received and the payment of cash it appeared to him the books of the plaintiff were far more reliable than those of the defendant, whose book was made up from entries made by his wife, therefore he should give judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed less £1 17s (a set off for work done) and costs £2 10s. R. Jenkins v. Burgess. Mr Richmond for plaintiff and Mr Baker for defendant. Richard Jenkins deposed to being a farmer at Bunnythorpe; saw 120 sheep at Freeman R. Jackson and Co.'s sale on 14th January last ; did not see them sold ; caw Mr Saxon in the presence of Mr Burgess ; Mr Burgess told him he would sell the sheep for £1 on his bargain; Mr Saxon told him to take them ; he gave defendant a cheque for £1; got a receipt for sheep at 6s 9d. Mr Baker here admitted the price of the sheep to haye been sold at 5s 9d by the auctioneer. Witness cross-examined : Had been a farmer in this district for six months ; never bought sheep before ; went up to the clerk to settle for the sheep, and he mentioned 5s lld; the price per sheep was not mentioned prior to the offer of £1 extra being made ; was not told the sheep COBt 6s 9d. Mr John Saxon deposed to remembering the sale on the 14th January ; the sheep in question sold for 5s 9d ; saw the plaintiff after he bought the sheep and told him the price at which defendant had bought the sheep. Cross-examined : Burgess told plaintiff he had paid 6s 9d, and that was the price agreed on ; witness afterwards told Jenkins to take the sheep back to Burgess. Mr Charles Carr deposed to being manager for Freeman R. Jackson and Co. ; Burgess might have understood that the price of the sheep was 6s 9d, he also came to witness and asked him to alter the price in his book, which he refused to do, and said that though they might alter the name of a buyer they never made any alteration in the price. No witnesses were called for the defence. Mr Baker, in his speech for the defence, contended that the plaintiff should have returned the sheep and demanded his money back when he was told the price that had been paid for them ; instead of this he refused to give up the sheep, and demanded that the difference in money be refunded to him. Mr Baker concluded by quoting several cases in support of his argument. Mr Richmond replied for the plaintiff. Judgment was given for defendant, each party to pay their own costs. His Worship gaye judgment in the case of Bunn v Thomas, adjourned from last Court day. It will be remembered that this was a case arising out of damage done by a > bush fire on the Spur road on or about the 14th January. The plaintiff sought to recover the sum of £70. The evidence showed that the fire had originated apparently on defendant's property, and did the damage complained of. The defendant was seen by some of the witnesses setting fire to his bush, but this was after the fire had started. During a conversation at the time defendant said he did not know that plaintiff had any grass seed and that no one had seen him start the fire. For the defence it was contended that the evidence proved that the defendant was only lighting the fires after the initial fires had been lighted. His Worship said it seemed to him the evidence of the witnesses went to show beyond a shadow of doubt that the fire appeared to come from the defendant's section, and his evidence was given in a strange manner. It appeared to him to be proved as a fact that the defendant did set fire to tliis bnsli, and tbtvt it spread to the property of plaintiff. The question of damages he found very difficult to arrive at, but he would make them as moderate as was consistent with the evidence, and would giye judgment for the plaintiff for £30 and costs. Mr Sandilands applied for counsel's fee 3 guineas, and witnesses expenses. Petersen v Campbell ; claim, £13 ds. Mr Prior for plaintiff and Mr Richmond for defendant. Carl Petersen deposed: Knew Mr Campbell who asked him if he wanted a job, as he had some bush to fall, and if witness hked to join him at a contract he ] could ; went up to the bush the same day i and started work; after four days he stopped work, and Mr Campbell asked him what was the matter ; he replied he would not go on with the contract ; then he agreed to work on for wages and started on the Uth of November and stopped on the Bth December, working 10 hours each day up to the last when he worked 5 hours ; at this time he asked for his money which was refused. Cross-examined: Remembered stopping work a few days after going to the •work; no amount of wages were mentioned at the time nor of the price for boarding; ls an hour is the ordinary pay for a bushman. This was the case for the plaintiff. For the defence, Kenneth Campbell deposed that on the 4th November he made arrangements with plaintiff to join him in a bush contract at Mr Murray's Waituna West, and no money was to be paid oyer until the contract was finished ; after a slight disagreement Petersen arranged to go on as before and that was the understanding untd he asked for his pay on the Bth December ; would swear positively that no arrangement was made in regard to wages. Wm Cumley deposed : He worked for Mr Campbell on Mr Murray's contract ; saw plaintiff who said to him they wero all working mates together; only receiyed orders from plaintiff on one occasion. Martin Armstrong also gaye evidence. After both counsel had spoken judgment was giyen for the defendant without costs. Pringle v Amesbury ; claim, £16 4s 6d, This was a case of a promissory note. Judgment given for plaintiff with costs. Counsel did not claim fees. The Court then adjourned.