RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Inangahua Times, Volume IV, Issue 98, 21 November 1877, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Tttesd|A.y, Novembeb 20th, 1877. (Before E. Shaw, Esq., R.M.) HOBEIITg V EBAIiEY. This was a claim for £20 being tho amount duo upon a contract for driving a poal tunnel at Boatmans and for damages arising thorofrora. Mr. Pitt appeared far \h<? pfofofci/R Tho following evidenco was taken !— Edward Morgan — I reside at Boatman's, I know tho parties in question. I was present when tho contract wns made botween Healy and Roberts. Tho price ugred upon was £12 for tho lump job. Roberta performed tho contract. By tho Court. Tho ground w|jp bo driven about 20ft. Honly $ho t w,ed. us where he thought the drivo was to go to- Tho ground wns to be opened for two sets of timber. There was same face w.ork $o bo done, I worked on tho contract. By defenda.it, I did not hoar anything ?aid about leaving throo feet of coal in tho face.. By tho Court. — There is no coal in the $teo now. I saw none in driving, Dennis Healy. I got protection far a poal area at Boatmans and wo worked it from a face, but ultimately the stripping beoamo too deep and I naked Roberts what ho would put in tho drive for. I told him it was a forthight's job. He agreed to take tho con« tract at £12. and was to make a good job pf it. 1 showed him where I thought ho would strike the coal, but said that if he tuot with coal in the first five foet, 1 wouid be satisfied to pay him so long as there was throo faot of ooal itp the faco. He waa to loave 3ft of coal iv tho face. Ctoss-oxamined, I offered, to pay plaintiff for what work he hail done. 1 did not offer to settle the case with him him and pay nil exponses I offered ta submit the work to arbitration. Ilis Worship said it was quite evident that plaintiff hud not fulfilled hjs contract- The work required was pointed out by defendant befqr.e the contract was gone into. Judgment for £9 10s. KATEIfc V. MC'WI^MAJig This was a claim for £2. 10s, tbo valu.o of a goat alleged to, have been shot by defoudanft. The following evidence was iaken :-* Anthony 3£»ter. — I am suing defendant for £2. lOsthavaluo of a goat, I w,o,uld not ha,vo sold tho goat for £3. IQ$ On Wednesday morning I was; in my garden and heard two shots fired in the direction of defendants, my boy went over,, aud returned saying that the goat was shot, I wont over and he asked me if the goat wqa mine, I said it was; The goat was then in his paddopk. There is grass in tho paddock. Ho drove the goat out at his front gate, He told me at the tim,e tha,t he would shoot everything tfiat owne into tho. paddock. I asked him why ho did not drivo |he goat out vhon ho saw hor goinc in. Cross'examiuQd by defendant — I am not awaro that thero is a notice on your fence, stating that animals trespassing would, be shot. Defendant said he was continually pestered by neighbours gopta, Tho animals lumped 9yor his fence an^d destroyed his ci:o,p. Ho had endeavoured to find tho owners of the goats, to sue them for trespass, but had failed, aud finally, had determined, \o take the \o^\\. into his own h^nda. Hjis Worship said defendant had made himself liable for. the valuo of the goat, the 0,n.1y question remaining being aft to the amount: The goat had not been killed, And before assessing the damages he (his, Worship) would inspect the goat. Judgment reserved. O'mam&ey. v, H. C. Minns, This was an aption to recover the. sum of $14 7s for goods sold. The parties ar,e neighboring farmers, at the Grey Junction, and> a disagreement hjmng arisen between th,cm claims and counterclaims w.ore made upon each other, Mr Pitt appeared" for the plaintiff, and- Mr Jones, on behalf of Mr Staite, appeared for $io defence, , After hearing evidence at some length the Bjench gave judgment for plaintiff for £7 12a .