DISTRICT COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LVI, Issue 6489, 14 December 1881, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

Tuesday, Dio. 18. (Before His Honor Judge Ward.) JUDGB T. BBOOKB. ' This ease was now continued. • Mr Joynt for plaintiff { Mr Harper for defendant. The following further evidence for the defence was led:— Thomas Leoompte, contractor of Barry's Bay: Had known Judge's land for eighteen years. Sowed it in grass seed fonr years ago. The land then belonged to Mr Latter. It was very rough then, and had a good deal of maiden bush on it. At present, less than half of the land is in maiden bnsh. Should call it all bnsh, the grass seed being sown in the dead bush. The smallest half, or a very good third, is green bush. Out the grass seed on the land last season for the pkintiff. Thought there were from 18 to 16 acres. It was a pretty fair corner to eat. Did not f o over the whole. It was a pretty good crop, realising 85 bags of clean seed. Plaintiff had offered witness £IOO to clear the bnsh, but he had refused the offer.

Croß*-oxamined: I would not swear to the number of acres under green bush. About 10 or 16 acres hare been felled with the axe t the rest is all bush, dry or green. About 60 or 60 acres were sown in grass seed. Edward Chapman, labourer at Barry’s Bay: Had been employed by the defendant to out the grass seed in January, 1880. There were from eight to fourteen men. Began with Hr Brooks' own, and after cutting the ripest there cut what was ripe on Mr Judge’s. Was time-keeper. A road divided plaintiff’s land from defendant's. Over half the land was in green bush; the rest the fire had been through. None of it was actually cleared. TUd cut all the seed they could possibly gst. There was a tidy crop where the bullock tracks were. The seed from plaintiff’s land was kept separate from the rest. There were 59 bags of clean seed. There must have been between 77 and 80 bags of rough seed. Frank Smith worked under witness off and on. Witness had a job to keep him at his work during the day, and from his liquor at night} but he worked well while at it. Cross-examined: I have never out grass seed on bush land before or since. I would just as soon work in among a bunch of “lawyers” as anywhere else. None of the seed was shed through being too old. Thomas Brooks, the defendant: lived at the head of the Bay 5 also had a house on the hill top. Two years ago had agreed, after some talk, to give plaintiff lid a lb for the seed off the clear land. Told him it was very rough land, and he could not expect that the other could be got. Put the men on as soon as the seed was ripe. Kept the men a week wailing. Began with his own because it was soonest ripe. Two years ago, little else th«n bush could be seen on the land. The price of grass seed at that time was Sid. It came down to 2|d and 8d at the time it was ready for the market. When Mr Judge received an account of the result he expressed dissatisfaction, and the next witness heard of the matter was by a letter, dated Nov. 26, 1889, from Mr Joynt’s office, demanding £2OO for rent.

Cross-examined : There were four or fire acres that had been cleared —the timber felled. There were 20 or 25 acres fit to out. There was scrub on that. The rest was so rough that the grass could not be out. The bullock tracks were mentioned. That meant the portion, pretty clear, alongside the bullock tracks. Nothing was said about any other land. William Georgs Ohatfleld and William Oruikshanks gave corroborative evidence. Edwin Sheen Harley: Mr Brooks had com* missioned witness to sell bis crop in January, 1880, had sold 220 bags at 2Jd per lb, less 2} per cent commission. That was the whole quantity witness had sold. This closed the case for the defendant.

Learned counsel addressed the Court. His Honor gave judgment for £2l 17s 6d, in addition to the amount (£3216s 7d) paid into Court. WILMOT T. PAPANUI TOWN HAIL COMPANY.

This was an action for £l7O 12s, brought by Madame Lotti Wilmot, widow, against the Papanui Town Hall Company. Mr Stringer appeared for the plaintiff, Mr Joynt appeared lor the defendants. In opening the case, Mr Stringer gave the following bill of particulars, but said he was afraid he would have to abandon the last item of £IOO 1 —

Hire of hall | 2 0 Advertising ... ••• * ® • Man's Bordoos at ha 11... ... 010 0 Lobs in admission money, plaintiff being unable to keep engagement with the public toloctura IS 0 * J2 #

Tho plaintiff further claims £SO damages for refusal of defendant# to carry out their contract to hire tho nee of thoftamoludl to her on tao evening# of the Otb. Wth, 21st. and 27th Nov., and of the 4th Doo., whereby plain, tiff was put to loss and oxpen bo In hiring other ana - less suitable promise# 8# • • Tho plaintiff f«rtli or claim# the Bum of £IOO for special damage# for loss to her In her profession of a nubile lecturer by reason of defon* dants' breach of contract, whereby she was compelled n - to break fivlth with thopubllo 106 0 9

£l7O 12 0 Mr Stringer then called the following orlWalter Palairot, Begistrar of Joint Stock Companies, produced the recistrjr of the Papanui Town Hall Company, Limited. Tho registered office ef the Company wa# at Tatter(all’s. Lotti Wilmot, public inspiration spiritualism lecturer i Had met the Secretary of the Hall at the hall, and told him it would suit her. Saw Mr Jnokeon, who agreed to lot her have the hall for one Sunday at two guineas, with the option of taking it for five succeeding Sunday nights at the same price. Mr Moon, the Secretary of the Company, gave her the agreement at the office# of the Company. Mr Joynt questioned the sufficiency of tho stamp on the agreement. Mr Stringer submitted (hat the document created no tenancy. Witness continued : Had held one meeting on Oot. 80. On Nov. 4 wrote to the effect that she would require the ball for the succeeding Sundays. (Letter of Nor. 8 produced. It required the doors to

he opened at 7 p.m.) Beeeived a letter from the Company signed by Ur Moon, to the effect that she was advertising her lecture in the hall without permission, and woald have to submit her lecture to the Directors of the hall before she woald get permission. Wrote in reply that ehe had a written agreement for the use of the ball for five Sundays, and informed the Directors that if they broke the agreement she would bring an action against them. On Nov. 6 saw Mr Moon at his office, and put down two pounds and two shillings. A small bay standing by Mr Moon’s side said the notes wore not a legal tender. Went to the bank and changed the notes for gold, which she tendered. Mr Moon said he would come over and see her, as the Directors were sitting in judgment on her. Asked what she had done to the Directors, whom she did not know personally or by sight. Mr Moon said : “Your lecture is called 1 The Devil and his Angels,’ for Sunday night, and Mr John Matson is afraid something might come out about a friend of his. Your lecture last year on 1 Christchurch by Day and Christchurch by Night,’ bos offended those gentlemen, who have determined to stop your giving any more lectures in this city if they can possibly help it.” Witness told mm ehe did not wish to near any tittle-tattle, but intended to stick entirely to business, and have her programme carried oat. Mr Moon came to her hotel three times that afternoon, and talked the same sort of tittle-tattle, which she refused to listen to. The third time he took the money, and gave the receipt produced. Prepared her lecture, and advertised the time of the tram oars. Mr Moon told her that those people who objected to her lectures bad brought their influence to bear to stop the tramcars on the previous Sunday. He also told her they would endeavour to make her lecture so late that the tramcars at 0.10 p.m. would be too early for her people to return by. He mentioned that the hall would not be opened until too late, She had arranged with the .tram people to have her lecture finished in time for the 9.10 p.m. tram. Told him she would insist upon the hall being opened and lighted by seven o’clock. Went on the €.25. p.m. tram on Sunday, Nov. 6, expecting to find the hail ready at seven. When she got there a urge quantity of people were waiting to be admitted. The ball was shut and unlighted. A little girl came out of Mr Moon’s house. (Mr Joynt objected.) When the tram came up Mr Moon woe running away over a paddock as fast as he could run instead of attending to the hall. Witness blew her dog whistle to attract his attention, but did not see him for a quarter of an hour. Was introduced to Mr Horner, one of the hall shareholders, to whom she complained. He said : “ Moon has the key." He also said be thought she had many enemies, amongst the Directors, who were trying to shat her up on that evening. In the coarse of about 20 minutes Mr Horner said: "There’s Moon coming; he has the key.” Sent Mr Jordan, who attends to the hall, to prevent Mr Moon getting into his own house. Mr Jordan engaged him in conversation till witness came up. Witness asked Mr Moon for the key. He said: “Mr John Matson has the key, and won’t have the Hall opened till it suits. himself. At eight o’clock 1 will tell you where Mr John Matson lives; you may go and fetch the key and light the Hall yourself.” On the previous Sunday Hr Moon acted as the hall-keeper. Mr Moon, in reply said: “ I am not your servant.” Told him whoever waa hall-keeper when she engaged a hall, was her servant for the time being, and had to follow her instructions. He said he had other instructions, which he would obey instead of hers. lost her temper. (Mr Stringer: And Mr Moon gained some braises. Mr Joynt: There was a total eclipse of the moon.) At about a quarter to eight o’clock went to the hotel to wait for the cars, and returned to town with a large number of her friends. Should say there were 60 or 70. What is given at the doors is generally a shilling. Had paid £3 for advertising in the newspapers. Had omitted her “billing” expenses. Had paid 10s to a man as hall-keeper. Mr Moon was simply impertinent and offensive, though the day before be was agreeable and fawning. Intended to have carried out the arrangement for six Sundays. Had suffered by having ho place to give her lectures in. _ Had now only a place to give - “ sittings in circle" in, but it was not a proper place. Her Sunday takings when here last and in places of a similar size, were £ls to £2O. In Melbourne had averaged £35. Cross-examined : The arrangement was made with Mr Moon and Mr and the written agreement was given by Mr Moon. Two hoars' gas was stipulated for, but nothing was said as to church hours. I may have said I usually began as the' churches came out. It waa not a stipulation, but only in conversation. There was no arrangement as to the hour at which my lecture should commence. Mr Jackson did not say that he would not let me the hall during church hours. Did not see Mr Horner on that occasion. Went to his house, but did not see him till the evening of Nov. 6. Did not use the fact that she was only to have the hall at 8 o’clock for the purpose of reducing the rent. Had simply said she would burn SB for two hours. On Cot. 31 began her tturo at about S o’clock.

Mr Joynt: Confine yourself to answering questions, and don't be so discursive. Witness : I answer you questions which yon put in an nngentlemanly manner. My receipts for Oct. SO were under £5. That left a loss. The manager of the Tramway Company agreed to run a tram at the conclusion of my lecture. Mr Moon and Mr Peterkin agreed to that. I think the Tramway Company ran their oars to suit my lectures. They agreed to do so. They issued return tickets, and the Seople had to walk back. They apologised unng the week for what bad happened. On Nov. 6 a tram was put on which had never run before. 1 don’t know whether it has run since. The reason the first lecture did not pay was because it had not been sufficiently advertised, and because a number who came by the 8 o'clock tram were told that there would be no lato tram, and so they returned at once. Had tried _ to get the Theatre Royal, but had failed. All the other public halls in Christchurch were engaged for services on Sunday. Did not know if the hall was opened and lighted at 8 o'clock. It did not concern her. She had gone back by the tram. Gave defendants notice that she intended to use the hall on Nov. 6, by verbal notice to the Secretary. Took no steps to ascertain if she could have the hall on the succeeding Sundays, as she would not again deceive the public. Made up her claim on account of the loss in public confidence. During the five Sundays she would have established herself, and the Company would have been glad to let the hall to her again. Would have made more than £6O during the time, judging by past experience. Bdward Jordan, doorkeeper and moneytaker for Madame Wilmot: Had been present at Papanui on Nov. 6. Saw a number of people waiting about at the Hall. On the previous Sunday evening the cash taken was bom £4 10s to £4 15s. The takings at the Theatre Royal had ranged from £l6 t* £23 or £24. Heard Madame Wilmot ask Mr Moon for the key. Mr Moon replied that Mr Matson had the key, and he would not open it till 8 o’clock. Heard nothing more except a little tiff with Madame. Cross-examined: The money taken on Oct. 30 was more than 635. Madame counted the tickets afterwards. The money taken was over £4. The cause of the small attendance was the little notice. Some advertisements were in the papers, and some double demy bills were posted. , A , Mr Stringer called attention to the plea being a general denial, which His Honor had held not to be a snffleient plea. He would not take advantage of this, however. This was the case for the plaintiff. Mr Joynt called for the defendants the following witnesses t George Moon, Secretary to the Company s Had seen Madame Wilmot on Oct. 28 at the Tramway Company's office. Mr Evans then said the plaintiff wished to take the hall. She said she would like to see it. Witness said he would go to Mr Jackson and Mr Horner, member* of the House Committee,

with her, and show her the hall, Mr Jack, •on uid ho had no objection to lotting the Hall, provided it did not interfere with the Church serviced. Plaintiff replied that ■he would not interfere with the Church service*. Her object was to catch the people coming from church. Mr Jackson eaid *he might have the hall on thoio conditions provided Mr Homer concerned. Plaintiff said gas would only be burned till half-past tine. It was distinctly stipulated that the lecture was to bo from 8 to 930, Plaintiff said if it suited both parties she would like the hall for the next five Sundays, Mr Jackson said he would have no objection provided there was nothing objectionable in the first lecture. Subsequently witness saw Mr Hcrner, who agreed to Mr Jackson’s terms, Bnw plaintiff at Tattersall’s the same day. Plaintiff paid two pounds and said she would owe the two shillings. Gove a receipt. The Wt arc on Oct. 30 began nt 8.20 p.m. Plaintiff arrived soon after 7 that evening, and remained in the dressingroom till the lecture. About 70 people were {•resent. The hall holds 600. Beceived the etter dated Nov, 3 on Nov, 12, at the Papanui Post-office. The Christchurch postmark is Nov. 3. The letter of the Company, dated Nov. 4, was not in reply to the plaintiffs letter of Nov. 3, but In consequence of her advertisements. The Directors did not Mootion plaintiffs having the hall earlier than 8 o’clock. It is not true that he had said to her on Saturday, Nor, 5, what the plaintiff deposed he bad said. He bad not need the statements she had sworn to. She came into the office and wanted him to take the money. Had said that he could not do so. The Directors were sitting, and as soon as he got his instructions he would let her know what they were. She said: " You might have said I suppose that they are sitting in jud; ment on me,” Told plaintiff distinctly that the Directors would not let her have the hall before 8 o’clock. Did not say that people brought their influence to keep the tram back, cr that the object was to keep her so late that the tram coaid not take her people back. Plaintiff said she would not require the hall after that, as she had a far better place in town. On Nor. 6, told her I had the Chairman’s instructions not to give her the key till 8 o’clock. She assaulted witness, and then went to the hotel. The Hall was opened and lighted np at ten minutes to 8, and was kept so till halfpast 9. Mr Horner remained in charge. There were three people in the Hall, waiting there from cariosity. Cross-examined : Had seen an advertisement in the Liberty before the letter was written. Mr Matson, the Chairman of the Directors, wrote it, and witness signed it. Understood that the doors were not to be opened until after the people had come from church. His Honor : Though she said her object was to catch the people coming from church? Witness : On Nov. 6, there were about 26 boys, who usually hang about the church gates ; 20 people came np by the tram, and there were about 20 or 30 others. Never told the plaintiff the key was at Mr Matson’s. John Jackson, one of the Company’s Directors, and a member of the House Committee, corroborated the evidence of the last witness, as to the plaintiff’s statement with regard to the time to be occupied by her lecture, Ac. William Horner, another Director : Had consented to plaintiff’s having the hall from 8 to 9.30 p.m. This was the case for the defendants. Learned counsel addressed the Court. His Honor gave judgment for the plaintiff for £25 12b and costs. KAY Aim WOODS T. PABKBS. This was an action for £lls 6s 6d, balance of account for work and labour.

Mr Stringer appeared for the plaintiffs. The defendant was not represented by counsel.

The dispute between the litigants had been submitted to arbitrators, bat the defendant now objected to one porticnlar list of extras which had been placed before the arbitrators without his consent.

The plaintiffs agreed now to deduct £2 5s 3d, and His Honor gave judgment for £ll3 Os 3d and costs.

Defendant asked for time to pay the amonnt, bat as he said he most call his creditors together if ordered to pay £ls a month, His Honor made no order.

This concluded the list. The Court then adjourned at 8.10 p.m.