Feilding Stipendiary Court

Feilding Star, Volume XV, Issue 60, 8 September 1893, Page 2

Feilding Stipendiary Court

(Before 11. Eyre-Kenny Esq., S.M.) Tho following cases were disposed of after we went to press .yesterday : — W. Ayrea v. J. D. Valentine : claim, £12 8s 3d. The defendant paid £7 14s into Court, and disputed the balance. Mr Sandilands for the plaintiff, Mr Reade for the defendant. The plaintiff deposed that he was engaged by the defendant to build four chimneys to houses in Makino, and he was to be paid at the rate of Is 6d per hour. On his sending in the account, defendant refused to pay, as h» considered that witness had not worked the number of hours charged for. Charles Tarrant, Thomas Easter, and James Huddlestone, were examined for the defence. Judgment for the amount claimed, £12 8s 3d, less £7 14s paid into Court, with 10s costs of Court, and 21s solicitor's fee. A. Guthrie v. J. D. Valentine : claim £7 4s 4d. The same counsel appeared in this as in the previous case, and judgment followed the decision in the former instance. Judgment was for plaintiff for amount claimed, £7 4s 4d, less £4 9s paid into Court, with 10s costs of court, and 21s solicitor's fee. Maria Oliver v. P. Sheerin: claim, £3 3s, for board and residence. Mr Reade for the plaintiff, and Mr Prior for the defondant. Judgment for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, with 6s costs of Court, and 21b solicitor's fee. Hugo Sixtus charged Benjamin Le Prou with rescuing two horses on the 14th June last, as they were being driven to the Cheltenham Pound. Mr Richmond ior the plaintiff, and Mr Sandilands for the defendant. Hugo Sixtus deposed that, on the day mentioned, he was driving two horses from the Bluff road to Cheltenham, when the defendant came along and defied witness to take the animals, at the same time offering to fight. Cross-examined, The horse had been on witness' land previously, and ho made a charge for allowing them to be there. His brother consented to Le Prou taking the horses back, but witness objected to giving them up. Re-examined, Witness did not know that Le Prou was part owner of the horses. Gustave Sixtus deposod that accused overtook him and his brother, and defied them to take tho horses auy further, at the same time making use of violent and strong language fle advised that the horses should be given up to accused. James Temporloy, and \V. J. Shaw wore also examined for the plaintiff. Mr Sandilauds submitted that no assault had been committed, and oven if such was the case, a criminal, and not a civil action should have been brought Again, there was no rescue, as one of the two partners who wero driying tho horses agreed to give them up. Bonjiinan Le Prou deposed that he made an arrangement with the plaintiff for running his horses iv Sixtus' property and gavo his versiou of what took place on tho road, and doniod threatening to strike either of tho Sixtus'. He offered 9s for the driving foo which tho brothers declined to accept. Witnoss then offered to fight either of them for £5, but neither of them wore on. Cross-examined : Witness did not make any attempt to use his whip, neither did ho ride up in a threatening manner to them. After counsel had addressed the Bench, his Worship delivered judgment in the following torms. He was satisfied that an act of trespass had been committed, and that a rescue was effected. As however there wore mitigating circumstances, and the expenses were heavy, the justice of tho case would bo met by lnflictiug a fine of ss, with 11s costs of court, £3 10s expenses of witnesses, and 21s council's fee. A further charge of assault against the aarao defendant, arising out of the above casi> and m which the damages were laid at £10, his worship was of opinion that a technical assault had been committed, but thought that a nominal penalty of Is would moot the case. The defondant was allowed one month in which to pay tho costs mcurrod in tho previous caso. The Court then adjourned.