Feilding R.W. Court

Feilding Star, Volume XIII, Issue 133, 7 May 1892, Page 3

Feilding R.W. Court

. Thursday, May 5, 1892. Before Mr Brabant, E.M.) (Concluded.) E. Cnrreen v. J. Graham. Mr Sandilands for the plaintiff, and Mr llichmonc for the defendant. His Worship, in giving judgment, said In this case the defendant sued for the balance of amount due to biui on a bush felling contract, namely, £'20. The defence had been that the work had not been carried out in accordance with the specifications, that a number of dead trees and six or sevon ratas had been left standing. The plaintiff had stated that the defendant excused him trom cutting the ratas, but the defendant said that he only did so conditionally on the rest of the work being done to his satisfaction. It had been proved that a number of dead trees had been left standing, but these the plaintiff denied hisUiability to cut down, on the ground that they were stumps, and that he only contracted to cut down dead and live trees, his contention being that a dead tree without branches is a stump, whatever might be its height. The definition in Walker's dictionary of a stump was a part of a tree . remaining in the earth after the tree has been cut down. It was argued that the word stump is understood differently in reference to bush felling. Of course, oral evidence as to the meaning of trade terms was admissable in order to explain a written contract, but as laid down in the case Lewis v. Marshall, referred to in Addison on Contracts, it could not vary the ordinary meaning of plain words, unless such evidence was clear and irresistible, or could a person who had no knowledge of the meaning of such trade terms be bound by them. His Worship held that the promise of the defendant to exempt the plaintiff from felling the ratas was conditional on the rest of the bnsh being felled to the defendant's satisfaction. The plaintiff had not perfectly finished bis work, he therefore did not consider him entitled to full payment. He offered him the option of a nonsuit, or take judgment for such sum as the court might award. The plaintiff elected to take judgment, and was awarded £11 12, this being a reduction of 22s an acre on the contract price. The defendant to bear the cost of court, £2 6s, and expenses of witnesses. Dr Johnston v J. Hook ; claim £6 6s for medical attendance on the wife of the defendant during confinemeut. Mr Prior for the plaintiff and Mr Sandilands for the defendant. After hearing the evidence of Dr Johnston and Dr Sorley, His Worship gaye judgment for £5 8s 6d, that being the amount due, according to the recognised scale of £3 4s for attendance, and 10s 6d for the first mile, and ds 6d for each subsequent mile the medical man had to travel. Defendant was allowed one mouth to pay the debt. J. H. Ashworth, registrar of dogs for the Manchester Road Board, sued Mrs Grammar, hotel keeper at Ashurst, for the dog tax for two dogs. Mr Sandilands for the plaintiff, and Mr Prior for tho defendant. Mrs Grammar said one of the dogs belonged to Mr Davidson, and denied the ownership of the other. His Worship said that as it was admitted in the case of one dog that it had been allowed to remain on the premises for a considerable period, the defendant was clearly liable, and inflicted a fine of 20s and costs. John Cornish Wilmot y E, Irwin; claim £14, damage for breach of contract. Mr Sandilands for tho plaintiff, and Mr Prior for the defendant. The plaintiff deposed that he had purchased a colt from tne defendant, and paid a deposit of £2, the horse being at the time in the hands of Mr French, who was breaking it in. Subsequently his money was returned with a note from Mr Irwin stating that the horse was in pos session of Mr French, and that he alone could dispose of it. Edward Irwin said that he had delivered the horse into the hands of Mr French to break in, with tho option of purchasing it for £17. On the plaintiff offering to purchase the horse he had replied that the horse was in Mr French's possession, and that if Mr French decided not to take the horse the plaintiff could have it for £18 ds, and that a deposit of £2 was received on that understanding. R. French, W. Line, — Frampton, and W. Butherford also gave evidence in this case. Mr French valued the horse at £25. Mr Sandilands, in addressing the Court, referred to the extraordinary arrangement which it was said existed between the defendant and Mr French, by which the latter was given possession of the horse with the right of purchase, for an indefinate period. By reference to a decision recorded in Benjamin on sales the learned counsel showed that mas much as Mr French had not intimated to the defendant — preyious to the plaintiff paying a deposit on the horse— that he intended to become the purchaser, he had j no preferential claim. His worship, after taking time to consider the case, gave a verdict for the plaintiff for £2, the defendant to pay the costs of Court, £2 25., and £9 5s solicitors fees and witnesses expenses. The Court then adjourned.