TE KUITI S.M. COURT.

King Country Chronicle, Volume II, Issue 76, 3 April 1908, Page 3

TE KUITI S.M. COURT.

Friday, March 27TH, 1908. (Before Mr E. C. Cutten, S.M.). The usual monthly sitting of the Magistrate's Court was held at Te Kuiti on Friday last, when Mr E. C. Cutten, 5.M.," presided. Prior .to opening the business of the Court, Mr W. R. Franklin, solicitor, on behalf of the profession, welcomed Mr Cutten to the district. INFECTED SHEEP. A number of cases under " The Stock Act " were first dealt with, each of eight defendants pleading guilty to having exposed lice-infested sheep for sale.—Fines of lOs and costs were imposed. Mr Hine appeared for the Stock Department. A charge against a local resident of allowing a dog to remain unburied on his premises was dismissed. CIVIL CASES. Judgment for plaintiffs was entered up ii-Tthe following cases, defendants not appearing : Scott v. Murrell (Mr Hine), £2 15s and costs £l /s. Hogg v. McMeckin (Mr Hine), £3l 6s, and costs. £5 2s 6d. Green and Colebrook v. Pavitt (Mr Hine), £3 14s, and costs lOs ; same v. Holland (Mr Hine), £4 16s, and costs, lOs ; same v. Toa (Mr Hine), £2 9s 6d and costs 15s. DAIRY FACTORY TROUBLES. Lever v. Knauf Bros. : Claim £2B 15s for fines and damages for nonsupply of milk to Te Kuiti Dairy Factory during portion of season 1906-07, and the whole of 1907-08. Mr Northcroft appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Hine for defendants. In opening the case for the plaintiff Mr Northcroft explained that the action had been adjourned from a previous Court, at which the present defendants had obtained judgment against the plaintiff for an amount clue for the supply, by defendants, of milk to the dairy factory. The dairy factory was started by plaintiff under agreement with suppliers, early in season 1905-06. Breaches of the agreement were made with regard to the time of starting the factory, the building not being ready in time. However, operations began shortly after the stated time, and were carried on with the usual brgaks until the end of season 1906-07. The present action was based upon occurrences in the second and third seasons, and_ he would confine his case to happenings in those seasons. The claim was for fines for non-supply during portion of the second, and the whole of the third seasons and the amounts were set forth in the Agreement (produced) entered into between the suppliers and the plaintiff. H. I. Lever, plaintiff, stated in evidence, that during the season 1906-07 several of the suppliers dropped out. The factory kept running at the stated times", and continued working as long as it was practicable —till April 26th. The supply of milk was [lower in the second season than the first. Knauff Bros, were not partners in the first season, but in the second their supplies came together, when thev supplied cream instead of milk. They supplied up to April 4th, 1907, Did not request permission to cease. Plaintiff kept the factory running for about three weeks afterwards, when the supply became so short that it was found advisable to close. The supply at that time would be less than that from 150 cows. Suppliers did not, at any time, supply milk from 250 cows. At the beginning of the season 1907-08, at the time stated in the Agreement, witness gave notice to all the signatories to the Agreement as to his intention to open the factory to take milk. He prepared the plant and got steam up. One supplier came on the first day, and he believed another got part of the way and turned back. He refused to take milk. Next day nobody came. The minimum number upon which the factory could be run at a profit he set at from 300 to 400 cows. It could possibly be done on 250 cows. No complaints were made by suppliers with regard to work, or breach of contract, during seasons 1906-07 and 1907-08. Some of the signatories to the Agreement w r ere now away from the district.

Cross-examined by Mr Hine : The last day on which milk was received was April 30th. The milking season, provided for in the Agreement, extended from October Ist to May 15th. Suppliers dropped out in consequence of having leased or sold their properties. Mr H. Hetet was one of the signatories to the Agreement. Witness allowed H. Hetet to cease supplying for a time. This was not done with the suppliers' sanction. The second season notice was posted up to suppliers in two places in town with regard to the opening of the factory. Written notices were not sent to the suppliers. In 1906 the factory opened on October Ist. At the beginning of the present season notice was sent to all signatories to Agreement, including H. Hetet. There was a balance due, at the end of the second season, to suppliers. It was not yet paid. The balance was not paid as there was a certain amount owing for fines. Before the beginning of this season there was a balance due to Knauf Bros. No suppliers got a statement of accounts showing the balance. The payments for butter came through witness. As to overrun suppliers got half and the factory half. Witness got iHd on all butter made, including over-run. Suppliers 'had, a right to appoint a representative to inspect tests and weights each season. Mr Ormsby came along as representative and requested to inspect. I refused to allow him. The present season the factory was opened on October Ist. Did not have factory started before a supplier came. Would not swear there was not a fence up across the yard. It was there two or three days previously. There was a stable and trap shed close to the factory. It had been used as a store and had been converted into a stable. The factory was still open and could be utilised if milk was supplied. The lease had been surrendered for the pur-pose o'f having the section put up for auction in order to acquire the freehold. By Mr Northcroft: During season 1906-07 monthly accounts were rendered to suppliers along with their milk cheques. Everything was shown I except overrun. No objection was

made to Hetet's non-supply until the case came to Court. In the first season the factory was kept open till April 30th, instead of May 15th, because the supply had fallen off, and several were anxious to close. Witness declined to allow Mr Ormsby to inspect the books in the season 190607. Had not been officially notified that Mr Ormsby was representing the suppliers. The balance sheet did not show all the fines. The factory was ready to run, at the beginning of the present season, from October Ist until November Ist. Accounts were not demanded of him. Was not aware of any dissatisfaction in consequence of delay in the balance sheet being issued. To the Bench : There was a little ill-feeling on both sides, and this induced him to refuse Mr Ormsby's request to inspect. J. Ormsby gave evidence for the defence and said that he was prepared to supply at the beginning of the present season, and sent milk to the factor} 7 " on October Ist. The milk was returned. The factory, in his opinion, was not in a fit state to run. There was a fence across the passage. Was supplying during the previous season until the factoryclosed. Was prepared to go on at that time. Sent milk to the factory on two occasions, and it was refused. Was authorised to act as suppliers' representative during first and second seasons. Informed Mr Lever of authority. In second season inspected the books, but afterwards was refused permission by Mr Lever. Flad not been paid for last season's balance. Cross-examined by Mr Northcroft : Was Inot capable of running a factory. Knew whether it was in a position to start. Did not supply to the factory for the first three weeks of the second season. To the Bench: Sent milk to the factory at beginning of present season, as he thought plaintiff might fine him. Had a lot of trouble with plaintiff. Ngarongo, one of-the signatories to the Agreement, stated, in evidence, that he brought milk to the factory at the beginning of the present season. The factory was not ready and the milk was refused. There was a balance due to witness from last season. Witness supplied milk throughout the second season until stopped by plaintiff. The factory closed down too soon, and objections were made by witness and other suppliers. Witness had plenty of milk and it was wasted. In cross-examination by Mr Northcroft witness said he knew the factory was not ready by his experience of previous seasons. A fence was across the passage and the machinery was not in working order. : Mr Hine for the defence contended that breaches of- the Agreement had been committed by plaintiff prior to, and subsequent to the claim for fines. The fact of a balance still owing justified defendant in repudiating his liability under the Agreement. Moreover, the lease of the factory having been determined,', rendered it impossible for the factory to continue working. He submitted that continuous breaches by the plaintiff had done away with defendant's liability, and asked for judgment for the defendant. Mr Northcroft contended that the evidence supported : plaintiff's statement that the factory was ready, though the two suppliers, whose milk had been refused, might have a grievance. As to the accounts not having been settled it was admitted that litigation was pending, and plaintiff was in doubt as to the position. The claim that by closing down early in season 1906-07, plaintiff had committed a breach, was answered by the fact that the . factoiy had been running on alternate days towards the end of the season, and plaintiff had direct authority to close according to the conditions of the Agreement. He commented on the fact that defendant had not been called to give evidence, which prevented examination as to his position to supply. Judgment was reserved. A DISPUTED COW. Tohiriri v. Riddle : Claim £3, for the wrongful detention of a cow. Mr Shortland appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Hine for defendant. In opening the case Mr Shortland stated the facts were : that plaintiff bought a cow' and calf from a drover called Te Kapinga, and placed them in his paddock at Miroahuiao. Some time afterwards he missed them, and, as a result of enquiries, he proceeded to defendant's place, and claimed the animals. Defendant refused to part with them. The plaintiff, in evidence, detailed the transaction, and identified the cow in defendant's possession as the one he (plaintill) had bought from Te Kapinga. Hira Ropata gave evidence that he saw the cow outside plaintiff's paddock before it was bought. Knew Te Kapinga. Cross-examined by Mr Hine : The cow was branded, but he was not near enough to recognise brand. Constable Matthew stated, in evidence, that he visited defendant's farm and saw the cow in dispute. Defendant had earmarked the cow. The result of his enquiries led him to conclude there was no case for Police action. Defendant, examined by Mr Hine, stated he bought cattle in Waikato in September. In driving them to his place the cow, in question, calved at Miroahuiao, and was left there along with the calf. Shortly afterwards he passed Miroahuiao and saw the cow in the paddock. Went and looked at the cow' and was satisfied it was the same he had left. In coming from Te Kuiti on November sth he was driving a mob of cattle and saw the cow on the road. The calf was inside the fence and he drove it through the wires. Took cow and calf to his brother's place. On November Bth plaintiff came and claimed the cow. I told him I had left it to calve at Miroahuiao, and had subsequently picked it up near where I had left it. Plaintiff said he had bought the cow from Te Kapinga. I said there was evidently a mistake on Te Kapinga's part, and would write to him about it. I did write, but received no answer. I am satisfied the cow is mine, and plaintiff is satisfied it is the cow he bought from Te Kapinga. In cross-examination by Mr Short-

land defendant stated he had earmarked the gov.- at his brother's place because his yard was better than his (defendant's") own. Had never had trouble about picking up other people's cattle before.

W. S. Northcote, , for the defence, stated that he was at Miroahuiao when defendant's cow calved there. Witness assisted the cow. Did not notice brand or earmark, but MiRiddle made a note of brand and carmark. The cow and calf were left at Miroahuiao, and I promised to keep an eye on them. Saw the cow several times about the same place. Afterwards saw the cow in the Maori paddock. Some time afterwards was asked by Constable Matthew to go to Mr Riddle's and saw the cow there. Am sure it was the same that I saw at Miroahuiao. Kapinga also asked me to go to Riddle's as he said there might have been some mistake. Cross-examined by Mr Shortland : Did not notice brand or earmark particularly. Te Kapinga described the cow he sold as a roan cow. Te Kapinga was sent from Taranaki to drive a mob of cattle. Took them from J. Old, and when close to Mahoenui tallied the mob and found there was one missing. Tc Kapinga said a mistake might have been made. His Worship, in giving judgment, said it was a peculiar case, and one in which it was difficult to come to a decision. However, considering the whole circumstances, he would give judgment for the plaintiff with costs £6 9s. A BUSH CONTRACT. V' S. Hattaway v. H. Prebcnson : Claim £l9, for goods supplied to bush contractors, to defendants order. Mr Hine for plaintiff, and Mr Shortland for defendant. Evidence in support of the claim was given by R. L. Fitzpatrick, plaintiff's book-keeper, and the books were produced showing account. The plaintiff gave evidence as to obtaining a guarantee from defendant to pay £5 out of moneys coming to one James, who was bush-felling for defendant. The money was to be paid providing that amount was due to James subsequent to the date of the guarantee. For the defence defendant and E. Banfield gave evidence to to the effect that no money was due to James at the expiration of the contract. In giving judgment His Worship held that plaintiff was not entitled to claim the amount of the guarantee, and the rate of interest charged would be reduced from 8 per cent, to 5 per cent. Judgment would be for plaintiff for £l3 is 3d, including amount paid into Court, and costs £5 16s.