MAGISTERIAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2059, 10 December 1907, Page 1

MAGISTERIAL.

MONDAY, DECEMBER 9,

(Before Mr. W. A'. Barton, S.M.)

Itofusing to loavo Licensed Premises.—Francis McNamara was charged with refusing to loavo the promises of the British Empire hotel when requested to do so. Sergeant Williams stated that accused was in the hotel on December 3rd., and was creating a disturbance. A coroner’s jury .was sitting upstairs at the time', and their proceedings were interrupted by the disturbance. His Worship imposed a fine of £l/ with costs 7s, in default 4 days’ imprisonment with hard labor.

Alleged Theft—John Seagar'Buckland was charged with having on or about sth May last fraudulently omitted to pay £lO 9s to John Bussoil Hill, being the proceeds of a horse sold by accused on behalf of informant. Mr. T. A. Coleman appeared for accused and by his request an adjournment was granted until next day at 2 p.m. Claim for Busli-felling.—Malcolm Cruickshauk and others (Mr. Blair) proceeded against William Sheppey Lunn (Mr. Coleman) for the recovery of £122 16s amount alleged to bo' ' due on a busli-folling contract. Mr Blair outlined the case for tlio plaintiffs, arid called Malcolm Cruickshank, who deposed that he had a contract with defendant to fall bush; the contract (produced) was ,sigued on the 31st July, 1907/ The contract specifications were observed with one exception, some trees under 18 inches in diameter being leit standing. Plaintiffs were told by Boland, the ranger, that if the scrub was well cut he would not bo hard on them, as regards the timber. Towards the end of August a letter was received from defendant notifying a ‘change of ranger. No complaint had been made by Boland, the ranger, up to this time. The new ranger, Brown remained for about a fortnight, and made no complaint about the work. At the end of a fortnight Boland returned as ranger and stayed in plaintiff’s camp for about a 1 week, after which lie went out with them to work, taking a slasher and doing scrub cutting. Boland said that lie would work for them to repay them for the week’s board he had. It was not part of the overseer’s duties to do so, and plaintiffs would prefer him not to work. When witness’s mates objected to Boland working, he said if they were making a 1 disturbance ho would make one’for them. Boland left noxt morning, and told witness on his return that lie had been away looking at the bush which had been felled.’’ Next day Boland asked witness if they were going to leave manuka trees standing over IS inches in diameter Witness replied that Mr. Lunn had told them they could leave them. When the -specifications wore being signed witness spoke to defendant about not being in the habit of falling tree manuka. Defendant then said they would not argue about it. All manuka trees up to eighteen inches had been cut and trees of a larger diameter had been loft standing, but neither of the rangers made any complaint. Boland complained about a- piece of scrub not’ being cut and plaintiff's cut it. After complaint about the nianuka -trees Boland said that according to tlio specifications plaintiffs would have to take 48 hours notice to leave. Witness and another of the plaintiffs named Strong camo to Gisborne: and saw Mr. Lunn, and asked him to come up and look at the hush himself". Mr. Lunn promised to' come up as soon as ho could. Witness told defendant that they had had notice to quit. Defendant gave .witness £2 on account, which was all the money that had been received from him/ Witness asked defendant if they could go bn working until ho came up, and defendant told them to wait for him. Witness then went back to camp but did no work. Defendant arrived at the work on the following Friday and told plaintiffs to get off the place as the work was not done to his satisfaction. Witness told defendant that they would not leave until they were paid for what work had been done. Defendant then told witness to come to Tiniroto and talk it over, saying that the bush was cut in suoh a way that it would not burn. Witness offered to give it a trial, and if it did not burn defendant need not pay for itWitness told defendant that if ho would pay for the one section they would leave, hut that if ho would not they would stay and finish the lot. At Tiniroto defendant said the best thing they could do was to complete the one section that he would pay for it if it was done to his satisfaction. At this time the first section, No 1, was nearly completed. Witness conferred with his mates about defendant’s offer, and two of them went over the section, while witness left and came to town and saw'defendant' again. Defendant thou said he would pay for the work when it was completed if witness would sign a discharge, but this fitness refused to do Witness had been employed as a imshfallor for 6 years, working for. different people, and had never had a complaint against his work before.—To Mr. Coleman: Neither witness'' nor his mates in witness’s hearing had threatened to fire the bush the first favorable wind. Did not see any of the trees hanging on the stump. The under scrub had been cut before-'driving. Had told defendant that he had backed out of the contract', and wanted nothing if defendant would pay his mates. Defendant sent a message offering to take over the cam]) gear at a valuation. No patches of scrub had been left untouched. With regard to the £2 received from’ Mr Lunn, witness understood it was on account of the contract. —William Cruicksliarik also gave evidence.—Edward Strong also gave evidence corroborating the statements of previous witnesses. Ho stated that tlio specifications as far as possible had been followed. No complaint had been made about the work until after Boland the overseer had been stopped working in. the bush.—To Mr. Coleman: Had not had anyone to go and examine the bush with a view to giving evidence in the case. Had been bushfaling for three years and had had no complaints about his work.—This concluded the case for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Coleman addressed tlio Court for the defence, and pointed out that he would call several witnesses to. show that iiie work, had been badly done. In consequence of this defendant had been put to considerable loss. —-Win. Sheppey Lunn, defendant, stated that on September ,25th ho had a telephonic communication from Boland. Witness in consequence of this

report gavo instructions to have the mou stop work, Noxt day Mr. Cruickshank and Strong eumo. alid saw witness and said they had received vorbul uotico to quit from Boland. At the request of Cruickshank witness visited the bush in company witli Mr. Spence, and spent some hours in it. Finding it badly done, witness confirmed, the uotico to quit, verbally, at tlio camp, and later on at Tinoroto gavo a written notice to tlio snmo effect. On receiving notice to quit two of tlio bushmon threatened to firo tlio bush at the first opportunity. At Tiniroto witness asked Cruickshank to go ovor the bush again, which ho refused to do, and it was then that witness gave tlio written uotico to qriit. Tlio’following morning Cruickshank told witness that they had agreed to go over tho work again. Witness consented, providod it could bo dono in a reasonable time. A day or two afterwards witness saw Cruickshank in Gisborno, who told him that ho wished to throw up the job, and that the others were going on with it. Witness was not aware that only two men wore working at that 'time. Cruickshank told witness that lie did not require any money in connect r ion with tho job, but that if there was anything to come his mates could have it. About a week after this witness received a telephone message from Cruickshank saying that the work was finished, and was awaiting inspection by an export. Witness then arranged with Wallis and Brown to ©xamino the bush. As a consequerice -Of- .their report witness sent a further notice to quit. Witness had ordered grass seed lorl file two sections. Assuming that section 1 burnt well, it would not be of much value by itself. —To Mr. Blair: After notice to quit had been given 8 or 9 days elapsed till he received tiie telephone message. Wages men had been working on the section since, for 51 weeks.—Samuel Boland stated that he represented 1 defendant’s interests oil the section in question. During tho first fortnight witness as ranger had occasion to complain about the work not being done properly. Mr. Cruickshank to whom he spoke said that ho would'see to it. This'was done and two more complaints were made in the course of the noxt week. Witness then left for about a fortnight, and on returning suggested that lie should do some work in the bush to make up for tho week’s board he had from them. W. Cruickshank objected strongly to witness working, and he knocked off. Witness then complained about somo scrub not being properly cut, and -two of the men camo back to go over it again, but did not complete .it. Cruickshank, however, finished it in witness’s presence. When witness spoko to Cruickshank about going over tho work again, Cruickshank said if that had to be dono he would leave tho camp. Witness then telephoned to defendant, and as a result gave tho party 48 hours to quit tho contract. In - witness’s opinion the work was not properly completed., There was at,,present not a very good chance of a good burn.—To Mr. Blair: Would not swear that lie had not a conversation with Criekshank' 'say in g that if the under-scrubbing was-well dono he would not be about the trees. It was after tho dispute that witness had gone over the busli to examine it.-—Frederick John Brown, sliepliord, Tiniroto, John Leslie Spence, and E. W. M. Wallis also gave evidence. This concluded the - defendant’s case, and Mr. Coleman for the defendant addressed the Court, and read the original contract. He pointed out from a clause in tlio contract that tlio defendant was perfectly justified ill determining the contract as ho did. —Mr. Blair also addressed the Court, and referred to the modification of the original contract, when the men wore allowed to go back and go over the section again. Mr. Blair referred to tiie evidence which showed that aifytliing which had been pointed out as wrong had been immediately remedied. In (conclusion Mr. Blair considered that the- plaintiffs having worked hard for from 8 to 10 weeks for defendant were on the evidence entitled to some consideration.—His Worship reserved judgment until the following morning, at 10 a.m. Prohibition Ordor. —A prohibition order was granted.