Resident Magistrate's Court.

Marlborough Express, Volume III, Issue 108, 21 March 1868, Page 5

Resident Magistrate's Court.

BLENHEIM—'Monday, March 16, 1868. [Before S. L. Muller, Esq., E.M.] TITOS. WARD V. PETER o’DWYER. No appearance. JELLYSIAN V. GUILDFORD AND SON. James Jellyman deposed: That the item in dispute was the charge for carting two loads of timber, 12s. Defendant asked him to do the carting, no price being mentioned, from Gorrie’s to Guildford’s wool-shed, rather over half-a-mile perhaps. From there to Bomford’s, which is opposite, he charged 4s. for regular work. He charged more because he did not do his carting regularly, and at the time there was a very bad road. If ho did a person’s carting regularly, he made a reduction. He had charged for carting sheepskins, ss. ; he agreed to 45., but he was to receive all defendant’s work. By Guildford : I did not tell you I would cart that timber for 3s. a load. I have carted timber there before. I charged defendant different prices, but was doing all his carting regular. On one occasion I had timber to take there and wool to take away, which was a consideration. In an early account produced, I admit one load from Mr. Gorrie’s to the woolshed is only charged two shillings. By the Bench : I had no agreement. The road was bad. Defendant has been getting Dr. Horne to do his regular carting. I did not make any remark that I would charge more than I had been doing; but he had knocked me oft doing the regular work, which altered circumstances. By Guildford; Your son told me if I took off 75., that he would pay the bill. I refused. The Bench said he saw no reason assigned why the defendant should pay more—say three times as much as on a previous occasion, and he knew himself carting from Gorrie’s to there is 3s. Judgment for defendant, with costs of Court, and allowance for plaintiff’s and a witness’s time, 19s. STEPHEN HOCKEY V. ALFRED WOOLLF.Y. Ann Hockey deposed: I Jive in Blenheim and go out nursing. I nursed defendant’s wife. She paid me £2 for her con finement; I was to have £3 more for a fortnight’s nursing, and 10s. for a cradle I sold her. I attended a fortnight and then left. I asked for the money; they said they could not pay me. The next time I went up to see how the babies were gettingon, she gave me £2 notes for her confinement. They said they would pay me the rest as quick as they possibly could. They ha ,- e not done so. By Woolley: I agreed to nurse for 30s. a-week and £2 for the confinement. I attended her, as Dr. Horne was not able to come. I did it nicely. I did agree for the confinement, and if anything came wrong and a doctor was employed, f was to pay him myself. She was ill from three in the morning till eight at night. It was about evening when the first baby was born. I delivered them both. Your wife hadn’t engaged a doctor, and I have a -witness to prove my general arrangements. Anne Woolley deposed: I am the wife of Alfred Woolley, and engaged Mrs. Hockey for 30s. a-week. I said nothing about engaging her during the confinement. I sent for the doctor at the time. My husband went for him; it might be three or four hours after I was taken iIL I sent for Mrs. Hockey when I first, felt ill, and she was with me at the time labour commenced. I did not send for the doctor at the same time. By the Bench : Did you intend to do without a doctor ? Witness: No; blit Mrs. Hockey said she could do it all herself. That was before, she sent for the doctor. I was ill nearly all the day till the „ births, blit nothing worth speaking off Mrs. Hockey was attending me all the.time,- and delivered me. Wheli my husband Came back from the doctor’s,-1 Iras delivered off the first baby,-

Mrs. Hockey sent my husbahd back to teii him not to come. I heard her teii the boy to go after her husband. The boy was sertfc to tell Dr. Horne to come. 1 am quitti ceitain of it. By plaintiff: I sent for you at three iil the morning. I sent for the doctor aboiifc six in the evening. There was no word between you and me about the confinement} or about £5 ; all that was said was, that you were to look after me at 30s. a week. I only engaged you to look after me. The Bench said plaintiff’s statement Was borne out by defendant’s own witness; There was evidently an intention of doing without a medical man. She only engaged plaintiff to look after her after confinement;. Something would have to be given for attending her labour ; £2 might be considered a reasonable charge, for if she chose to gO out as a midwife, there was nothing to stop her. Judgment for plaintiff £3 12s.j add lls; costs. T. AVAKD V. F. WALT.ER. Mr. Moffitt appeared for plaintiff. He said defendant agreed to deliver near the Bush a certain quantity of firewood (10 cords), and the agreement has not been perfotmed ; £4 is assumed to be the Worth of the firewood. The Court said he could not go on with the case till the plaintiff appeared to swear to his damage. Case adjourned till next Monday, plaintiff paying defendant’s expenses for loss of time, Bs. ; defendant’s witness to be paid if plain- ' tiff lose his case. PAur, v. jas. nonixsox. Mr. Moffitt appeared for plaintiff, and stated that this was an action to recover £2O for damages sustained by dogs By the old Act it was necessary to show that defendant’s dogs were accustomed to injurO sheep. The new law does not require that; it was a simple question of fact whether, defendant’s dogs weie worrying the sheep} and what damages were sustained. Edmund Paul, a farmer living at Spring Creek, 'deposed that before the last flood he had his sheep mustered on the Saturday, a number were drafted out and put in a paddock. On the Tuesday after, one of his men heard dogs, and told him of it. After' dinner he went down witli one man and a youth, and found the dogs on the sheep worrying them. There were four dogs,'* which lie knew were defendants. The sheep were about half-a-mile from the house. Hd went to defendant, and told him the dogs were on the sheep. Defendant went immediately on horseback towards the dogs with a youth, and witness could not see him or ' the dogs again that day. These dogs he had seen before and since at defendant’s house. Witness had dogs of his own They were in the stable when he started, and . they followed him out. He found 18 sheep worried that day, and on the follows ing day found 10 of them dead, others of the 18 being badly bitten. Two or three were dead the first day. Witness pointed out the dead ones to Mr. Robinson next morning. One ram was very badly bitten that cost £4 ; another that was there on the Saturday previous, and which cost £7 here; he had not seen it since. The first ram is almost a dead sheep, just crawling about. The dogs drove the sheep in the ; direction of the water. There were some good ewes amongst the 10, which cost £1 each ; could not swear to more than 11 actually dead ; the other seven were still running about. When the defendant saw the dead‘ -sheep he admitted his responsibility; but not the amount. He made nd proposal for the settlement of the damage. . The lowest estimate of damage is £2O. . Some of those that were dead were across the creek, carried over by the flood ; others might have gone down that I could not find; Those found on the other side of thei creek dead were badly bitten. By Robinson: All across the creek were more or less bitten. John Simpson, a servant of Messrs. Paul} gave similar evidence. By defendant: I saw your dogs on tad sheep; tearing hairs out of some of them} especially the two bull dogs, James Robinson said he objected to thO price of the sheep; He didn’t catch thd dogs or sheep, but they were on Paul’s run. Joseph Wratt deposed that He was, in thei;; employment of Mr. Robinson at present; Three Of the dead sheep plaintiff showed :i ; him had no marks of dogs, and appealed td ' have been'drowned, fourteen sheep word , all showed to him, seten of them were dead; s The three mentioned he turned over.- Asort of frothy foam came from their nose; as' r there always is in cases of drowning.' Teii sheep were dead altogether,- but three cff them in his opinion by drowning. Plaintiff said there were some owes,' eortfd ) wethers,- and some lambs dead} and;'" he!; valued them at £l each, the ram at; £2., V Judgment for £l3, with £3 18s. Cost?} ; an allowance being made for plain tuffs, aha ■fitnesses time.- • ■ * «'* • ■ * i? - :j

FAEMAK V. STEACHAN. Mr. Moffitt appeared for plaintiff, and eaid this was a claim for £2l 4s. and interest due upon an acceptance. F. T. Farmar, a sodawater manufacturer, residing in Blenheim, deposed that the bill of exchange, was duly presented, and had been dishonored; 2s. 6d. noting charges been paid on it. It was due on the 16th November, 1867. Judgment for £2l 45., with interest from day the bill was due till the day of settlement, with costs £2 Bs. POWICK V. STEACHANNo appearance.