DISTRICT COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2423, 11 January 1882, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

OHRIBTCHUBOH, Tuesday, Jandaby 10, [Before his Honor Judge Ward.] B. GILBS T 1. 8. BELL. This was on action to recover £93 7s, balance alleged to be due on o building contract. Mr Stringer appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Harper for the defendant. The particulars of the claim stated that the amount of the contract was £350, and that there were extras to the amount of £23 7s 2d, making a total of £373 7s. Credit was given to defendant for cash received at various times amounting to £240, and an allowance was made of £4O to enable the defendant to complete the work, leaving a balance of £93 7*.

The following is a continuation of our report: E. S. Bell’s examination continued—The extra work to the stab es. which was arranged to be done for £ls, was not completed when plaintiff threw up the contract. It was understood that the usa of the horse and dray was to be a set off against the extras. Plaintiff had the use of the horse and dray for about thirteen days, and witness charged him 10s a day. Employed another man to complete the house, and paid him £6O.

Mrs Bell deposed to having purchased mantel-pieces, a kitchen range, and other fittings at prices below those mentioned in the contract, on the understanding that credit was to be given for the difference. John Sears, who superintended the contract in question, gave evidence as to the cost of the extras. The lining of the rooms cost about £6. The stable was not completed when the contract was thrown up. The work done to it was worth about £6. Learned counsel addressed the Court on both sides. His Honor gave judgment for £23 15s and costs. BBEITMBYBB T WILLIAMfI. Claim £163 19s fid, for board and lodging and goods. Mr Martin for the plaintiff, and Mr Button for the defendant. George Breitmeyer, the plaintiff, deposed that he was a grazier, residing on Banks’ Peninsula. In March, 1880, he remembered seeing his father, John Breitmeyer, on the occasion of his signing some deeds conveying properties which did not belong to him. [Mr Button said he would admit that John Breitmeyer was at the time suffering from softening of the brain through old age, and was incapable of taking care of himself.] Sometime after this witness took charge of his father, and kept him at his house until he died in 1881. The things set out in the particulars of claim wore supplied by witness to his father from time to time as he required them. They were necessaries. He also paid certain bills on account of his father. In taking these steps he acted under legal advice. It required one person to be constantly in attendance on his father, who was childish.

Cross-examined—His father was married, and at the time witness took him away was living with his wife. She wanted him to go. Told her that ho would have to go either into the Lunatic Asylum or the Old Men’s Home if witness did not take care of him. Before this he was on very good terms with bis father, and was not accustomed to treat him disrespectfully, nor to irritate or offend him by calling him nicknames. His home at the time was [not too comfortable. There were many other relations besides witness. A meeting of the relatives was held, at which an agreement was come to that the property should be sold, in order to raise an annuity for his father. Did not stop the sale of the property and give the defendant notice that he would hold him responsible if he carried out the arrangement. Shortly after taking care of his father did not ransack the house in search of title deeds. Obtained them from Mr Nalder. He took possession of part of the furniture. Befused to give the deeds up to the executor. His father’s second marriage took place twenty-seven years ago. When he took his father he arranged that he should be accompanied by his wife. Did not give her any notice that he would make a charge. She did not stay long, and left because she could not be bothered with witness’s father, and not through any unkind treatment from witness. His father never tried to go home to his wife; ho always wanted to go home to Germany. Ho was always running away in different directions. On one occasion when he went home bis wife was anxious |to keep him, but witness would not let him stay, because he was told by the police sergeant that he was responsible for his custody. Let eight acres of land belonging to his father to a man named Morley. Beoeived no rent for it. Sold several things for which be had given credit. Mr Williams, the defendant, and Ur Pawson were each married to a sister of witness and lived in the neighborhood. Did not consult them about taking care of his father. None of his relations except his mother-in-law tried to get his father back to his own house. Expected his father’s death for two,or[three days before it occurred. Did not send a message to his father’s wife that be was dying. She lived about a mile away. Sent the butcher to say he was dead. On bis father’s last birthday, about six months before he died, bis wife came to bring him some presents, and witness forbade her to see him. He did this because on a previous occasion she had used improper language. Jacob Waeckerle, a settler residing at Akaroa, deposed that be knew the late John Breitmeyer, Only saw him once during the time he was at George Breitmeyer’a. Thought 30s would be a very moderate charge for taking care of John Breitmeyer. Cross-examined—Had been a hotelkeeper, and would not have boarded the deceased for 40s a week. Could not say what a man’s wife would charge for keeping him. Thomas Mould, butcher and dairy farmer residing at Akaroa, deposed that he knew the late John Breitmeyer, and used often to see him at George Breitmeyer’*. Saw him on the day he died. Would consider £2 a week a fair charge for keeping him. Adele Harrington deposed that she was a daughter of the late John Breitmeyer, Ho was staying at George Breitmeyer’s from March to July. Cross examined—Mrs Breitmeyer wont to Akaroa to see if she could get her husband back. She took witness with her to speak for her, as she said she was afraid her heart would be too full.

This was the case for the plaintiff. Catherine Breitmeyer, widow of the late John Breitmeyer, deposed that her husband before he was taken away was failing in his mind through old age, but was in no way violent. His home was comfortable. Allowed him to go away because the plaintiff told witness that Mr Aylmer had given an order to remove him to the Asylum. Would not have allowed him to go but for that. Mr Williams and other relatives had promised to assist her in keeping her husband. They had assisted her, but had never charged lor it. Went with her husband, but did not stay long because there was a noise. It was not true that she left because her husband was too much trouble to her. Had never thought him too much trouble. George Breitmeyer did not say anything about charging when he took her husband. Witness went for her husband once and brought him borne for two days, when he was taken away by George Breitmeyer. He got away again subsequently when the plaintiff and his butcher came and took him away again. He was not willing to go. Took some cake and apples to her busband on his birthday, but was refused admission to him. Did not give any cause to W Breitmeyer or his family which would induce them to refuse her to let her see him. Did see him on that day at the door, but was only able to shake hands and say “ Good bye," and that was the last time she saw him. Her house was about a quarter of an hour’s walk from George Breitmeyer’s. The first message she received of her husband’s death was from the butcher, who came and called out from outside, “ The old man’s dead.” She made application to Mr Aylmer to get her husband back. The plaintiff scarcely ever came near the house before his father became of unsound mind. He did not always behave politely to his father, and sometimes called him “ snob.” Cross-examined—Her husband was seventyseven years of age when George Breitmeyer took care of him. Witness was sixty-seven years of age. With the assistance of friends she could have continued to take care of her husband, who was able to wash and dress himself. Ho only wandered away to Akaroa twice.

William Fawson, of Duvauohelle’s Bay, deposed that he was a son-in-law of the late John Breitmeyer. In his opinion there was no occasion for his being taken away from his wife, and witness went and tried to get him returned to Mrs Breitmeyer. The plaintiff was not on very good terms with his father, and was not very respectful to him. Mrs Breitmeyer was very kind to her husband, and took eare of him as well os she could.

Frederick Walter William* deposed that he was executor under the late John Breit. meyet’* will. George Breitmeyer and his father were not on friendly term* when the latter wa* in good health. Used to see John Breitmeyer frequently. Did not think there was any necessity for taking him away from hi* wife. He wa* never violent, but used to play with witness’ children. He was feeble in mind and body. Mr and Mr* Breitmeyer were in comfortable circumstances, and witness always took care that they wanted nothing. It was certainly not necessary that the plaintiff should take bis father away, and his doing so was against the wish of witness and the other friends of deceased. Mr Breitmeyer’* will left the property equally between the five children. Witness was prepared to provide any assistance to enable John Breitmeyer to remain with his wife.

This concluded the evidence. Mr Martin addressed the Court for the plaintiff. His Honor gave judgment for the defendant with costs. OFLUYOBD T YABKBB. Mr Holmes for the plaintiff and Mr Stringer for the defendant. This was an action to recover £167 18s 9d for damages alleged to have been sustained through a fire caused by the defendant having extended on to plaintiff’s land. Joseph Oulliford, the plaintiff, deposed that in 1877 he was tenant of a farm at Springfield belonging to defendant. On September 2nd, a fire originated on Mr O. G. Parker’s land and extended to witness’ farm, burning about two miles of boundary fence and about 200 acres of tussock and English grass. Before the fire took place there were about 400 sbeep on witness’ land. Counted them on the Friday before the Sunday when the fire occurred, when there were 428. Counted the sheep on the Monday after the fire and found 87 missing. Some cattle were also lost in consequence of the fire. Saw the defendant the day after the fire, and told him what had occurred. An attempt was made to settle the matter by arbitration, but it did not succeed, Cross-examined—The fences round the paddocks were sheep-proof before the fire, Emma Culliford, daughter of the plaintiff, Frederick Benbam, Robert Shanks, and John Smith gave evidence as to the damage done by the fire. This was the case for the plaintiff. O. Q. Parker, the defendant, deposed that he was the landlord of the plaintiff’s farm, and on the date mentioned be caused the fire which extended to plaintiff’s farm. It burnt for about a mile and a quarter along the fence, but did not consume the stumps of the gorse nor render the fence less sheep proof than it was before. All the grass burnt that he was aware of was about forty-seven acres, consisting chiefly of tussock and English grass mixed. The burning of the tussocks improved the paddock. He first heard of the plaintiff having any claim for damages in consequence of the fire about two or three months after it occurred, when he told Oulliford that if he would mend some wire which had been broken on the fences, he (witness) would repair any damage done to the fences by the fire. That arrangement was not carried out, the plaintiff not having mended the wire. The plaintiff had hi* fences in very bad order before the fire occurred.

George Parker gave corroborative evidence. Thomas Butterfield deposed to the state of some of the plaintiff’s fences before the fire occurred. He was employed to repair some of the fences, which were then not sheep proof. George Butherford, a runt older adjoining the plaintiff’s farm, stated that after the fire the plaintiff gave him notice to muster, as be said he had lost some sheep. Witness mustered, and only one sheep belonging to the plaintiff was found among his flock. Dugald Matheson, another runholder, was examined as to the state of some of the fences. This was all the evidence.

His Honor gave judgment for the plaintiff for £SO 12s 6d, and the cost of three witnesses and Court fees.

The Court then adjourned until Thursday morning at ten o’clock.