Feildiog S.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 4, 4 July 1896, Page 2

Feildiog S.M. Court

Fbiday, Jnly 3rd, 1896. (Before R. L. Stanford, S.M.) Feilding Borough Council t. Alfred Hannett ; claim £2 6a 2d, for rates. Mr Cathro for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed, with costs ss, and solicitor's fee ss. Same v. F. London ; claim £2 7s, for rates. Mr Cathro for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed, with costs ss, and solicitor's fee ss. Same v. Jane E. Beechey ; claim £3 3s Id. Mr Cathro for plaintifi. Judgment for amount claimed, with coats 58, and solicitor's fee sa. W. G. Shearer r. F. Sydney ; claim £6 58. Judgment for amount claimed, with costs Bs. A Prohibition order was granted against C. P. Moore, on the applica. tion of A. G. Carty, to have effect to all licensed houses between the Rangitikei and Manawatu rivers. Mr Sandilands appeared for Moore, and consented to the order. H. Saunderson v. Chas, Hodges, junr. This was an information charg. ing defendant with cruelty to a horse, and for tbe recovery of damages, amounting to £7 9a, for the loss of game. Mr Richmond appeared for plaintiff and Mr Sandilands for defendant. H. Sanderson, deposed : Lent a horse to defendant to ride twice a week ; saw defendant every Saturday night and asked how the horse waa getting on, receiving a reply that it was all right ; from information re* ceived went np Kimbolton road on Tuesday, June 23rd, and found it with an injury to its off shoulder ; the hone could'at walk and he had to destroy it ; took Mr Mcrtagb, veterinary surgeon, up to see the horse ; claimed £6 for the horse, the amount he paid for it Cross-examined: Said defendant ill* used his horse because he left it on the roadside without informing witness ; defendant did not tell witness on Saturday, June 20th, tbe day the horse was in* jured, of the injury ; the only complaint he had of cruelty was that defendant bad left tbe horse on the roadside; offered to sell tbe horse for £4 30s but could not get it. To tbe Bench: Defendant told witness of tbe injury to the horse on the Monday night after it happened. Walter Towler deposed to seeing the horse, on the road aide, suffering from an injured shoulder. W. Kitchen deposed to seeing the horse in question on the Sunday after the accident ; it was crippled. P. J. Murtagh deposed to examining the horse in question and found it suffering from a large swelling on the shoulder ; told Mr Sanderson the horse was permanently injured and it bad better be destroyed ; killed the horse and on examining its shoulder found the bone to be broken. Cross-examined: Saw tbe horse on the Friday after the accident; ahorse with a bone in the condition described could not carry a man. Mr Sandilands submitted there was no case to answer that the birae had been ill-treated and asked that the case be dismissed. His Worship decided to hear evidence for the defence. Frederick Hewitt deposed : —On Saturday, June 20, was driving into Feilding when he met Hodges (defendant) and his brother riding into Feilding, who rode along with bim for a while ; at Forlong's road Hodges told him bis horse had gone lame and defendant's brother got into witness' trap while defendant rode ttie second hone and led the lame one ; drove on into Feilding and at the Kiwitea bridge de-, fendant caught np to witness again and said the lame horse would not oome further than Pharazyn's hay shed. Cross-examined: It was Sanderson's horse that went lame; oonlda't say that the horse was lame when witnses caught up to them as it was dark and defendant was riding on the grass. His Worship here said he was satisfied there was no cruelty and dismissed the case with costs 7s, witness' expense 6s and solicitor's fee 21s. Jesse Tapp -v. E. F. Eager; claim £10 14s. Mr Cooke fer plaintiff and Mr Sandilands for defendant. This was a a claim for the reoovery Of £10 10s for three tons of potatoes alleged to have been sold to defendant, but which the latter failed to take delivery of and which were subsequently destroyed by cattle. _ «_, __ Jesse Tapp deposed : Had agreed with defendant in January or February, 1895, for the sale of three tons of potatoes at £8 10s a ton; sold them in tbe ground ; brought down 2 cwt and defendant afterwards sent for 4 cwt ; defendant gave witness the bags for the potatoes ; filled the sacks as far as they would go and heaped the remainder; told defendant the potatoes were ready ; defendant never said he wouldn't take them ; the potatoes were destroyed by cattle getting into the paddock. Cross-examined : Hadn't to deliver the potatoes; defendant was to take them away. F. G. McKenzie deposed to being told by Eagar tbat be had bought the potatoes from Tapp ; saw the potatoes after they had been dug and stacked ; they were carefully stacked; ab^ut two or three months after stacking the cattle broke in and destroyed tbe potatoes. Cross-examined : Thought there were over tbree tons of potatoes. D. Highland deposed to being told by defendant that he had bought ttie potatoes from Tapp. Y. Dixon deposed to being offered employment by Eagar to dig tbe potatoes whioh defendant admitted purchasing; was sent up, with a man named Jackson, by Eagar to bring back some potatoes ; only went a portion of the way, but Jack* son went up and returned with some. E. F. Eagar deppsed that in April last he got judgment against Tapp for L 7 ss ; agreed with plaintiff to take potatoes for an account due to witness amounting to L7; if defendant had had tke potatoes was willing to take delivery of them; never received notice thai the potatoes were ready ; plaintiff waa to dig, then witness to pack thena ont ; would have packed the potatoes out had he received notice of their being ready. Cross-examined: Denied it waa at first arranged witness was to dig the potatoes; sent up nine bags to plaintiff's and the witness received judgment for their valne ; received judgment for L7 5s in April while L2 of thia amount had been J laid to witness; never sent a man to etch some of the potatoes ; did not send Dixon for potatoes ; did not allow any* thing for the first two owt of potatoes as tbey were giyen witness as a present, plaintiff being a lodger with witness at the time ; Dixon and Jackson might bave gone up but they did not bring down any potatoes ; never received a sample of tbe three tons ; no potatoes were delivered to witness' place after the arrangement for the purchase of the potatoes. H. Hollier deposed : No potatoes were delivered in any quantity at defendant*. Mr Sandilands submitted tbat tbe case should be non-saited under tbe Act of last session, which provided that where an agreement was made and the amount was over £10 the agreement should be in writing and there should be a partial delivery, wbich there was not in tbis case. Mr Cooke replied that tbe whole defence was under the Statute of Farads

Act, and he was aware he had to prove a portion of the goods were delivered, which he argued had been. Judgment was given for plaintiff, with costs J- 14s, witnesses' expenses, £2 Bs, and solicitor's fee 21s. J. S. Freeman v. Wm. Baker; claim £45. Mr Innes for plaintiff and Mr Cathro for defendant. This was a claim for the recovery of commission on a property sold by defendant, the plaintiff alleging he had introduced the purchaser J. S. Freeman deposed : Was given a section of 180 acres by Mr Baker to sell ; saw Mr Birss who was enquiring about properties for sale, amongst them Mr Baker's, and advised Mr Baker of the fact ; subsequently received a letter from defendant withdrawing the property ; the property was sold at £9 10s ; the commission was usually 2_ per cent, and he now claimed this. Cross-examined: Told Mr Birss verbally of Mr Baker's property. The defence was tbat in November last Mr Birss happened to be passing tbe property for sale, bis attention being attracted by a notice board, and be then went over the property. He afterwards had a conversation with F. Campbell abont the property and the latter agreed to see Mr Baker for Mr Birss. Also, that it was not nntil the following January that Mr Birss saw Mr Freeman first. W. Baker deposed : Received a letter from plaintiff, who stated that he had given Mr Birss a letter of introduction ; this was in January, but had been in communication with Mr Birss a long time before ; did not reply to the letter he received from plaintiff. A. Birss deposed : Purchased Mr Baker's property; first saw it about November 20 last ; was passing when he saw by a notice board the section was for sale ; a few days after went over tbe land and made enquiries about it ; wanted to buy tbe land, and went to see Mr Gorton about it ; did not buy the day he saw Mr Gorton about tbe land ; abont January 14 or 15 saw plaintiff at Ashurst ; while in plaintiff's office noticed by a circular a property was for sale ; asked if it was not Mr Baker's ; plaintiff replied that it was ; came to Feilding, where witness saw Mr Campbell and Mr Baker, where witness made an offer, which was ultimately accepted ; was given Mr Baker's name and address by plaintiff ; sent word to Mr Baker to come to Feilding to see witness; plaintiff gave no particulars of Baker's property, because witness knew all about it before. Cross-examined : Did not tell plaintiff that he had been over defendant's property ; did not tell Baker tbat he had been in Freeman's office. F. Campbell deposed : In December, 1895, saw Mr Birss and had a conversation witb him about Mr Baker's place. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £42 17s (2_r per cent on the purchase money), with costs 30s and solicitor's fee _3 2s. The Court then adjourned. _■■__■_■•—. ___■■—■ * m I