DISTRICT COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2401, 13 December 1881, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

OHRISTOHUBOH. Monday, Dbobmbre 12. [Before his Honor Judge Ward.] His Honor took his seat at 11 a.m. JUDGE T BROOKS.

Claim £2OO. Mr Joynt appeared for plaintiff, Mr Harper for defendant. After stating the case for plaintiff, Mr Joynt called Joseph Judge, who deposed that in 1879 80 he had 122 acres of ground, sown down to cocksfoot grass in Barry’s Bay. He sold the crop for seed, by verbal agreement to defendant, the latter undertaking to pay to him lid per lb for the seed taken off it. Defendant entered on the land, harvested the crop, and after a long delay made a return of the quantity he alleged he bad taken off the ground, viz., 54531b5, and tendered £32 16s 7d as the amount duo to plaintiff under the agreement. When the agreement was made, there was apparently a grand crop coming forward, such an one as should produce three bags of seed to the acre, whereas by defendant’s account, there was not more than half a bag per acre saved. When the return wes cent to him, plaintiff saw defendant and asked him if he meant to say that that was all the produce P Defendant said that there was a great quantity of seed left on the ground. The men he employed, while getting it in, had been muddled with drink, and he could not look after them. Defendant said he did not know whether plaintiff had to suffer for the misconduct of defendant’s men, but his agreement was to pay for all that was taken off the ground, not all that was raised on it. There had been no written agreement, and bis word was as good as plaintiff's, Bailing a settlement of the difference between them, plaintiff had brought the present action for the amount nearest to his loss which could bo sued for in that Court.

Cross-examined—Had taken possession of the farm shortly before he sold tbe crop ; had not been over the whole of it. Two sides and a part of a thud were fenced. Thera was some scrub standing, and some dead timber lying on the ground. There were 80 to 100 acres of clear ground. There were probably 100 acr-os of grasj to out for seed. Had asked othe.e, before defendant, to buy the crop. Was never told by any one that they would not take the crop as a gift. Asked defendant 2d per lb, but accepted lid per lb for it, as he whs rather late in selling, and could not got more. Had not much experience in grass-seed growing, but from a piece of the same ground had obtained last season begs to the acre. That patch was not fenced, but was protected by a creek from the encroachments of cattle. There were no cattle running on the ground when defendant bought tbe crop, nor had there been for some time before that. Ba-examined —Defendant lived close to the ground, and knew more about it and the crop when he bought it than plaintiff did. Michael Eaecan, farmer. Little Eivor, and Mark Blew, farmer, of Barry’s Bay, gave evidence as to the value of the crop, corroborating mainly the statement of plaintiff. They estimated the crop grown to be 2i bags of seed per acre all round for the whole area.

Henry Smith, contractor, deposed to being employed in harvesting the crop for defendant. It should have turned out three bags to the acre. The cutting was not well done. Most of the harvesters were drunk the greater part of their time. The drink came from defendant’s hotel on the top of the hill. Cross-examined —Chapman, the foreman, was often drunk. The party often knocked off work on the land in question and went to work on defendant’s own land.

Frank Smith deposed that he was one of the men engaged to cut the grass for defendant. Ko left before the work was completed. The overseer, Chapman, was always muddled with drink, and so were most of the men. Witness left because the overseer ordered him about foolishly. He would knock him off cutting good to'make him out worse grass. The work was commenced too late ; a considerable quantity of the seed had been shaken out before the grass was cut. He and his mates had threshed out 70 bags before he left. Another gang had done about the same, and

witness thought there was as much irore remaining to be threshed when he went away. The quantity threshed ont is reduced onethird by cleaning. The men meetly took out their wages in drink. Witness had done so as well as the rest. When he knocked off, after six weeks’ work, he had 8d to take, his wages being Is per hour and found. Cross-examined—He was now living at the hotel belonging to plaintiff at Tai Tapu. Had been there three days. Was brought down by subpoena from Ashburton, where he had been shearing. James Hay, farmer of Pigeon Bay, stated he saw some of the crop before it was out. He thought it should yield throe bags to the acre to be reduced by 40 per cent, in the cleaning. The best crops of grass seed were obtained from the edges of bush and among fallen scrub.

Robert Latter and Patrick Fahey gave similar evidence and closed the case for plaintiff.

In opening the case for the defence, Mr Harper intimated that he had seven witnesses to call, and it then being hulf-paat four o'clock wished to know if the court would adjourn or go on.

His Honor said they would go on till five o’clock.

Mr Harper said his line of defence would be simply to negative the evidence given on the other side, and he would have some evidence to produce also, which would put the agreement spoken of in a different light. He called

Robert Stuart, a farmer at Barry's Bay, who deposed that he knew the land during twenty years. There was not more than twenty-five acres of it cleared ; the rest was green or dry bush. Witness had refused plaintiff's offer to cut the grass on shares. He would not take it for anything. There was a good crop on the bullock tracks, but in the bush the lawyers and supplejacks made it not worth cutting. 150 acres that he had out the same year for Mr Latter had averaged two bags to the acre. Had Been cattle in the seed when defendant started cutting and previously. Cross-examined by Mr Joynt—lt would not pay 8» per day to out the grass seed except on the cleared land. Anything less than 3d per par lb would not pay. There was not more than forty acres from which grass seed could be cut at all. Had never had an unpleasant word with plaintiff. The Court then adjourned to 11 a.m. this day.

Tuesday, December 13. [Before hie Honor Judge Ward.] JUDGE V. BROOKS. This was an action to recover £2OO for alleged breach of contract. Mr Joynt for plaintiff. Mr Harper for defendant. The case was partly heard on the previous day, and the evidence for the defence was now resumed. Thomas Le Oompte, contractor, living at Barry’s Bay, deposed that he knew the plaintiff’s land well, and helped to sow a crop of seed on it four years ago. There was then maiden bush upon it, and at the present time nearly half was maiden bush. On the other portion the timber bad been felled and the bush burnt. It was on this portion that the grass seed had been sown. Last season he out grass seed from about fifteen acres of the land for the plaintiff. There was a pretty good crop, the yield being thirty-five bags. At that time be told Judge in a conversation that he thought the crop which Brooks harvested should have yielded about half a bag to the acre. He had refused an offer from Judge to clear the land for £ICO, as he did not consider it was enough. Had been about ton years harvesting seed. Cross-examined—There were about ten or fifteen acres of the land cleared. About fifty or sixty acres had been sown in grass. Edward Chapman deposed that be was a laborer, residing at Barry’s Bay, and was employed two years ago to out grass seed for defendant. This was about the middle of January. There were over 100 acres of land, a little more than half of which was maiden bush, Hone of the rest had been thoroughly cleared. All the seed was out excepting in portions where it was impossible to get at it, owing to lawyers and supplejacks. Thera was a good crop in some places, but in others only a patch of grass here and there. The yield amounted to 59 bags of clean seed, the total of rough seed being about 70 bags. Frank Smith worked for witness at the time. He worked all right, but required to be looked after at night, as drink interfered with bis work. His instructions from Brooks were to cut all the seed he could. This he had done.

Thomas Brooks, the defendant, deposed that he was the proprietor of a hotel at the head of Akaroa Bay, and of one at the Hilltop. About two years ago be agreed to give the plaintiff l£d a pound for the grass seed off the cleared land. He said at the time that he could not be expected to get any seed off the other portion. This was at the end of December, and he commenced cutting when the seed was ripe, which was in January. He could not say exactly how much cleared land there wos, and how much bush. He had men waiting to out the grass as soon as it was ready. He went on to the land in order to see where to get patches of seed. The market price of grass seed at the time of the agreement was 3Jd a pound, but it afterwards fell to 2£d and 3d, The seed was all cut before the price declined. Shortly after the seed was cut he saw the plaintiff, who complained about the quantity harvested being too small. The next thing he beard about it was in a letter from Mr Joynt’s office in November, 1880, when a claim was made for £2CO. When he made the agreement with Judge he considered that there were about twenty or twenty-five acres of grass seed to be cut. The rest was not fit to out.

Cross-examined—The agreement was that he was to out the grass on the tracks and spurs —the clear land. He employed Chapman because be knew him to a bestoady man, competent to do the work.

William George Chatfield, an old resident in the locality, and William Oruikshank gave corroborative evidence as to the nature of the land.

Edwin Sheen Holly, commission agent, deposed that in January, 1880, be sold about 220 bags of grass seed for the defendant at 2£d per lb, less 2J per cent, commission. This closed the caso for the defence. [Left sitting.]