Feilding S.M. Court.

Feilding Star, Volume XV, Issue 293, 20 April 1894, Page 2

Feilding S.M. Court.

_ .» — . ; THI HSDAV, AI'KIL 19tll. (Before Mr Brabant, S.M ) The following cases ere heard yesterday afternoon after we went to press : — J. Whittle v. C. A. Weiglitman con--1 turned i K. Jaeknian, recalled : The owner of , the land takes the grain from the machine. John Mitcherson, deposed : Saw Weightman go to the paddock to take the crop aud Whittle allowed him to go in, but tried to prevent the' drays going out. Wm. Drury, deposed : Had cropped ou Whittle's land on .shares ; carted the crop to other land to thresh. 1 C'roKH-oxaniiued : No money passed i between witness aud plaiutiii, when the j former had land on shares from plaintiff ; only went shares ou one occasion ; removed tho straw off the ground to Awalmri pah ; the agreement was verbal : it Avas more than ten years ago aiucG witness worked plaintiff's laud. ' Kooro Reuao, deposed : Had cropped for plaiutiff, whose land witness asked to be allowed to crop last seasou : plaintiff wanted thirds. Cross-examined : Only took ground ou one occasion from plaintiff; had the land ou thirds : threshed tlic wheat on ■witness' land. (Ml 1 H. J. Booth a c ted as interpreter for tho last two they being Maoris, and not well acquainted with English.! Joseph Weight-man, deposed: He had a conversation with plaintiff, who said that defendant had driven a " hard bargain '" and would not give more than one-fourth ; uiulei'Ktoo.rl Mr Knight wan taking possession of plaintiff's oats ; there were 1,280 cubic feet in the stack, representing 11 tons £scwt 241bs. Cross-examined by Mr Prior. , . Wm. K. Weightman deposed to being iv company with defendant when plaintiff objected to the removal of the crop, and corroborated defendant's evidence. Cross-examined : Knew the grain was taken away with the disapproval of plaintiff. C. H. Tarrant gave evidence, but it was of an immaterial nature. F. Mann corroborated defendant's evidence. (.Jco Boness, deposed : Saw the straw in question and should say there were from ten to twelve tons in the shack, including the piece which had been cut ont. i (' oss-examined : Consid' rod that, when Mieru \s ah no understanding about the slra.v, he had a right to three parts. l»y the Bench : The party who puts the crop in is responsible for the land aud crop. Wm. Flyuii gave evideuce for the defence. Mr Richmond contended that tHe balance of evidence was iv favor of defeudant, and the agreement was made at defendant's house and uot at plaintiff's. It would have been a simple thing for plaintiff to have kept the gates locked and kept defendant out. Defendant does not profess to know how much straw was in the stack. With respect to the defendant not notifying plaiutiff when he was going to thresh that point was clearly explained. It was also proved there was no custom as to leaving straw on the ground where it is grown, and was simply a matter of convenience. Mr Prior, in reply, said that the evideuce given by plaintiff aud Miss Crabb contradicted defendant's statement as to the agreement. A teuaut had uo right to question his landlord's title, and contended tho defendant was not in occupation of the laud. His Worship said that on the question of agreement defendant's evidence appeared to be given in a straightforward manner, aud as it was proved he had always stuck out for the straw it was uot likely that he would turn round when he wanted it so badly. Defendant's story seemed more likely than plaintiff's, although he did not suppose any party was wilfully giving false evidence. As to the custom whether it was usual that straw should belong to the grower, the evidence was clearly iv favor of defendant's view in such cases. Judgment would bo for defeudaut, who was only liable for the sum paid into Court, each party to pay bis own costs. J. Botcher v. Botcher. Mr Saudilands for complainant, aud Mr Fitzherbert for defendants. This was a claim for maintenance, made by Mr J. Botcher against his three sons. Mr Fitzherbert said his clients were each willing to keep their father, but he would not live with them and the sons objected to paying anything towards his support while he lived with some one else. Mr H. H. L. Bilclerbeek acted as interpreter for J. Botcher, the complainant, who is a German. Frederick Botcher agreed to keep his father in food aud clothing, and the father consenting to go with this son no order ws made. John Murphy was charged by the police with drunkenness and furious ridiug ou the evening of Easter Monday. Constables Tuohy, Minogue, and Gleeson, gave evidence of the offence. Accused was fined £2 and costs, lfhs, for furious riding, and 20s and costs, 7s, for drunkenness, or in default fourteen days' imprisonment, with hard labor, ou each charge, the sentences to run concurrently, A. L. Parr v. J. Belk : claim, XoO 13s. Mr Fitzherbert (instructed by Mr Reade) for plaintiff, and Mr Saudilands for defendant. This was a claim for material supplied and money leu t. A set off (i.'so 14s 9d) was put iv by defendant. A. and R. Parr were examined for the plaintiff, and J. Belk for the defence. Judgment for amount claimed, less 10s 6d, with costs i.'2 Bs, aud solicitor's fco .£2 10s.