RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Mataura Ensign, Issue 254, 11 May 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

GOKEWbdnesdat, 9rH May, 1883 (Before H. McCulloch, Esq., K.M.) POLICE CASESJohn McKay waa charged'with being drunk oq the licensed premises of Win. Coßtello, Gordon, on 3rd May, 1883, Constable Pratt said — On the day named in the information I went over to Gordon at the request of Mr D. McKay and found defendant ' staggering drunk.' Defendant was a prohibited party. Daniel Mckay said— Defendant,my brother, was drunk on Ooatello'B licensed premises on 3rd May. Mr Ald ridge, for the defendant, said that there had been disputes between the brother 8 over some property, i and that on the day named defendant was excited from a dispute and not through drink. John McKay, sworn, said — I had no drink that day in Gore ; I bad come upfromWyncU ham, and had a small flask of whisky. I might have taken one nip from the flask, but was not drunk. By the Court :— I was quite capable of judging, and could transact my business, though I might not have been able to write. His Worship thought that defendant had been drunk and would fine him ss, He waß only sorry that the person who supplied the defendant with drink was not present to be dealt with, IABCENY John Wilson, on remand from Invercargill, was charged with stealing a pocket book con« taining money from the store of John Macpherson at Longridge on the 19th April. The depositions of John Macpherson, Alexander Jenkins, John Gee, Duncan Boss, and the constable stationed at Lurasden were read ovor. I Sarah Ann Robs, sworn, said — I know the \ accused ; he came to my husband's house about midnight on the 18th April and asked for a bed. He slept at the house that night and remained until about 2 p.m. on the 19th when he left in the direction of Mandeville. He did not pay for his dinner, and asked for some money to pay his way to the Elbow. I had been instructed by my husband not to give the accused any money if ho should ask for any. He begged and prayed of me fo p money to take him to the Elbow, saying he was hard up, and I lent him ss, Prisoner was committed for trial at the next sittings of the Supreme Court, Invercarv gill. CIVIL OASES. A. Gorgensoa v. J. G. Scoullar, Claim, £3 5a 9d. Mr Johnston for plaintiff. Judgment by default for amount claimed, with costs 7s and professional fee 10s 6d.. W. Harvey v. Jas. Cheyne. Claim, £4 for goods supplied. Mr Henderson for plaintiff. Judgment by default for amount claimed with oosta 7s and professional fee 10s 6d. A. McKay v. C. Lynch. Claim, £5 19s 6d. To be paid on or before 19fck June, with costs £149. Hagenv. Louth, Claim 13s 6d for goods supplied. Judgment by default for amount claimed with costs Bs. I, S. Simson v, R. Dickson. Claim, £5 3s 6d for balance in price of horse knocked down at auction sale to defendant, refused by him, and after wards] sold at his risk. Mr Henderson for plaintiff, Mr Finn for defendant. I. b. Simsou. auctioneer, sworn, said — 1 held a sale of horsefl at Gordon on 27th January. The conditions of sale were read prior to the sale. [Witness, however, did not give evidenoe showing that by the conditions power was given to the auctioneer to re-sell at a former purchaser's risk.] The horse in ques" tion— a bay mare, aged— was put up for Bale. The first bid was £5 ; the defendant advanced £1, and the horse was knocked down to him ac £6. After the sale defendant came to me and said he would not take the mare as it wa 9 not a three year old, I informed defendant that the mare had not been described as a three year old. I was obliged to pay the owner £6, and then advertised the mare for sale without reserve, at the former purchaser's risk. On the Becond occasion the mare brought £1 12s 6. Some expense had been in curred in feeding and re«advertising her. — Cross-examined by Mr Finn : The mare in question waa not advertised with the mob referred to in the advertisement of the sale in the £nsign. Mr Finn said that defendant had beon misled by the advertisement and thought he was bidding for one ot the 2or 3-year-old horses named therein. He called Robert Dickßon f farmer, who being sworn said— l attended the sale for the purpose of buying one of the un~ broken 2or three«year *old horses named in tbe advertisement, I had no chance of examin« ing the mare, as I was under the impression it was one of the mob of unbroken horses in the yard, Tbe auctioneer said nothing about th c mare being aged. The hacks were in another yard altogether from the 20 unbroken h rses belonging to Mr Cossgrove of Waikaia. — CrosS'examined by Mr Henderson : I bought the mare thinking she was an unbroken draught mare. I was standing within two o r three yards of the mare when I made my bid. His Worship thought it was a fair Bale. The buyer should have been c ireful about bidd ing,and should have known what he was bidding for. The only point he htd any doubt about was whether the auctioneer had any right to sell the horse at the former purchaser's risk. The auctioneer's plan would have beea to sue for the price and horse's keep in the meantime. He would reserve his decision on the pjint, till nest Court day, 6th June. R, B-ee v. J. Murdoch. Claim £7 for services rendered Mr Henderson for plaintiff ; Mr Finn for defendant. . • Reginald Bree, sworn »aid --I was engaged by Mr Dick, Murdoch's manager, to keep his books for him at a salary of £l per week and was twelve week's employed. I have received £5. Dick puid mo the £5 out of a cheque fioin

Catto, canning the cheque, himself &i the Ban of New Zealand. I have spoken to the present manager aboub my claim and he . promised to see me right. John Murdoch, junr.-,. sworn, said: lam managing at my father's timber yards at Gordon, Mr Bree has spoken to me about the claim. I told him that I supposed Mr Dick would pay him, In the cash book produced there is no mention of the £5 paid to he pla intifif. The evidence of the defendant taken at Invercargil showed tha^t the manager, Dick, had no authority to engage a bookkeeper and that he, (the manager) had told defendant that he had employed a man at his own expense to keep his books. Judgment for defendant, coßts 13s, and solicitor's fee £1 Is. J. Heherr v. B. Doolan. Claim £17 17s 4d on dishonored acceptance for £11 53 6d, and balance for goods supplied. Mr Johnston for plaintiff, who was unable to produce the acceptance. His Worship, however, after hearing evidence, agreed to enter up judgment on condition that the plaintiff gave an indemnity against future action on the acx ceptance. R. Allison v. D. Kay. Claim £40, damages for defendant's neglect in threshing plaintiff's crop, whereby plaintiff suffered loss, Mr Henderson, with him Mr Finn, for plaintig, Mr Johnston for defendant. Robert Allison, farmer, sworn, said — I had about 80 acres in crSp3 last season ; 64 acres of oats and the remainder of wheat. Defendant was working a mill last season, and was employed by me to thresh my crops at 10 a per 100 bushels. The oats were very badly threshed. The yield averaged about 28 bushels to the acre. Last year the yield was about 50 bushels to the acre. The crop was quite as good this year as last, ' He threshed 458 bags off the 64 acres of oats. The mill shifted to my place on Bth March and \ threshed on 9bh, lObh and 12th March. On the evening of the 10th 1 discovered that the oats had not been properly threshed ; there was grain left in the straw. Told Kay the same night that he had not threshed properly, but that I would make a further examination of the stacks. On the I4fch I examined the stacks and found they had all been badly threshed. I considered that a third of the grain remained in the straw, and I found also that some of the grain had been carried up by the elevators, On the 15th I setit°a note to Kiy asking him to examine the stacks for himself and informing him that if be did nob make the examination I would have the damage assessed. Defendant came, made the examination, admitted that the oats were there and said he could not account for it. He then said be would come back at the end of the season and thresh over again, if I was agreeable. I made no reply, when defendant said he would call again on the following Saturday and see what I would take for the damage. At his request I instructed my men to say nothing about the bad threshing as it would do him (defendant) damage for the rest of the season. At the Mataura railway station I I met defendant and had been offered by him £4 for the damage, which 1 refused. On 31sb March I met defendant at McKel- I lar's station and he promised to return and thresh over again when he had finished at McKellar's. I agreed to , lend defendant 4 horses to Bhifb the mill again and pay him for the oats he threshed. Oa 6th April, defendant not having put in an appearance, I sent him a note informing him that I claimed £40 for the damage caused by imperfect threshing. I met defendant some days afterwards, and after making some effort to come to an amicable arrangement, I was told by him to go to h and do the beat I could. I consider that I have lost over 400 bushels— Cross-eyamined by Mr Johnston— l did not urge men working the mill to shove the Btuff through quickly. A man named Stark first drew my attention to the bad threshing ; had he not done so I should certainly have discovered it myself. The whole of the crop was in grand threshing condition, Richard Thompson, farmer, sworn, said— . I examined the stacks on Mr Allison's prop" erty and found oats in the straw. The thresh ing was imperfectly done, I found as many aa 18 and 20 grains in one stalk. The crop was ripe and fit for threshing when it was out- Almost every straw in the stack contained grain. I saw the orop before it was cut and estimated that the yield should have been about 50 bushels to the acre. George Ladbrook, farmer, sworn, said : I occupied the adjoining farm to Mr Allison at harvest time. I estimated that Mr Allison's crop of oats would go 40 bushels to the acre. If a mill did its work properly there Bhould be very few grains in the straw after thresh* ing. I examined the straw stacks after threshing and found from 10 to 26 grains in a single straw. — Cross-examined by Mr Johnston : From .'an examination of the stacks T would say that over a fourth of the grain remained in the straw, By the Court : lam of opinion that the cause of the grain passing the mill was that the drum was set too wide and the sheaves put through too fast. William Tumbull, farmer, sworn said : The crop in question was ripe for cutting and shouli have yielded over 50 bushels to the acre. Had examined the stack and found some of the sheaves full of grain just as if they had never been through a mill . R. AlHsod, recalled, said : The oats in the straw are no better for winter feed for cattle. This was plaintiff's case. James Balnea veg, farmer, sworn said : I examined the straw stacks on Me Allison's property. All the stacks gave an indication that the crop had been a patchy one. There was a lot of green stuff in « them, and that being so it was scaioely possible to thresh out cleanly. The crop should have gone 30 bushel* to the acre, I am of opinion that the crop was well threshed. Cross-examined by Mr Finn : I ma le an examination of ' the stacks in company with Mr McKellar and defendant. We were about an hour examin. ing the stack?. I saw a few green oats in the Btraw. The crop on Allison's this year was not nearly as good as that of last season. D. McKdllar, swctd, said : I accom pained Mr Balneuves and defendant on the 16th , of last month and made an examination of stacks on Mr Allison's farm. The first stack was of Canadian oat straw. The threshing was fairy well done. The other Btacks were better threshed than the first staok. So far as I an able to judge I do not think there is any ground for the present action. Would have i. c >.D satisfied with such threshing my set By the Court : If my straw waß coming out like that I saw in Allison's stack I should not have thought it necessary to stop the mill.— By Mr Finn : Had the straw been coming out like that produced I might have asked the thresher to be more careful. John Wilson, sworn, said : I was at AlU* son's threshing on the . 10th March. We were threshing up to about a quarter past 8 in the evening. Allison called out to the three forkers to 'chuck it up, boys.' We i

could not keep the machine half going because the wind waß blowing in our faoea and dust was blinding us. Some of the stuff could not have gone through the mill at all, Allison remarked that the stuff was not going through quickly enough, I picked up half a sheaf next morning near the stack that had not gone through the mill at all, Jchn Pratt corroborated the last witness' evidence. George sworn said — I was present during the three days of Allison's threshing and did not hear Allison make any complaint regarding the threshing. Saw Allison several times examining the straw. William Kay, sworn said— l was assisting at Allison's threshing in March, last, 1 heard Mr Allison calling out to the men to "chuck up the sheaves "—i.e. to throw them quickly iato the mill. I saw Allison frequently make an examination of the straw during the three days, D. Kay, defendant, said— Allison wag present during the whole time I was threshing at his place, He was carrying straw most of the time and thus had an opportunity of judging of the threshing. He came to me on the evening of the 18bh and said the mill was not threshing clean and that there would be a row in the morning. I heard him calling out to the men to ' chuck the sheaves up.' After he complained about the mill not threshing clean I went with him, felt the straw and asked him if we should stop the mill but he made no reply. Some days after I had communication with Allison, who said one-third of the grain had been left unthreshed ; but this was owing to green patcheß. Afterwards saw Allison, and asked him if £4 would satisfy him, but he said—" No, nor £40." Simply aßked him whether £4 would be sufficient to avoid litigation and other trouble. On March 23 saw Allison who asked me when I was coming to thresh the straw, replied, " Probably we may have to come ; but I don't intend to." Never agreed with Allison to re-thresh the Btraw. Have never in my experience kuown of straw being threshed the second time ; but have heard of such a thing being done at Oamaru, where a stack was threshed before the machine left the ground.— To Mr Finn : J The samples produced are not quite clean; When the principal wa3 there, and passed the job, I did not consider I had any liability. Tlie machine is fit to thresh well, but 1 told plaintiff that it could not thresh the green stuff. Admitted that the green stuff was not threshed clean, and admited also that when we were threshing after daik the stuff was not going', through properly. Asked Allison not to talk about the matter, as the season was not finished and it might do us harm. His Worship said many questions had to he considerd— amongst others the liability of the principal when on the ground— and in order to fully investigate the evidence he would defer his decision until next court day 6th June. M. Lawlor v. Ed. Murphy. Claim £2 16s for binding corn. Mr Henderson for plaintiff, who deposed that he had worked 56 hours at is per hoar, Defendant swore that plaintiff's services were of no great value for the first three or four days. He engaged him by the week at 35a, and was willing to pay him by the week for the seven days he had worked. His Worship said that in the absence of any agreement plaintiff would have to pay a reasonable sum, which would be Is per hour. Judgment accordingly for plaintiff for £2 10s arid £1 5s 6d costs. Taylor and Wright vF. Parker. Claim £2 11s 2d for work done. Undefended. Judgment for plaintiffs (for whom Mr Johnston appeared) for amount claimed and £2 103 costs. F. M. Dawson v. J. Loufch. Claim £13 6a for goods supplied. Mr Henderson for plain* tiff, for whom judgment was in defendant's absence given, with £2 Is costs. Hood v. W. Jenkins, Claim £21 19s lid, under a judgment summons. Mr Henderson for plaintiff. His Worship said plaintiff would have to prove that since judgment was given for the amount defendant had had the means to pay. Defendant denied that he was owner of Crichton Park, not having paid Professor Black for it. He went there with £1000 and had sunk tfce amount on the property, in addition to £1500 secured by mortgage on the stock and implements to Stephen son and Co., of Dunedin. Paid nothing on the purchase ; but it was understood something was to he paid out of the crop, which, however, had not come up to his expectations, owing to high winds having partially ruined some of it. Since judgment was given in this case he had not paid anyone, not having had the means. | [Professor Black had met aotne of the claims. It was estimated the crop would realise £4000, and if it did he would have £1500 to the good, Witness then underwent a rigid examination at the hands of Mr Henderson on family matters. He denied having given any undue advant* age to his son in money matters, and on being asked if he had not unduly favored his son-in-law, also replied in the negative. He had a daughter but was not certain about the son-in-law, and would make no admission other than that there " was a young chap about the place when he went there." Believed his daughter was married, but could not say to whom. Did not know the man's name. Witness added that he was oalling for tenders for ploughing just |now ; but that was. on behalf of Stephenson and Co., the mortgagees, .Robert Dickson— l worked on the GrichM ton Park estate and was paid by Professor Black on Me Jenkin's certificate. Mr Henderson believed Professor Black would pay Mr Hood also if Mr Jenkins would iaßue the necessary certificate. His Worship said he could not issue an order for payment or imprisonment,it not having been Jshown that defeadant had the means to pay. The case, however, would be adjourned until next court day,