Resident Magistrate's Court.

Marlborough Express, Volume IV, Issue 208, 18 December 1869, Page 5

Resident Magistrate's Court.

MONDAY, DECEMBER 13th. [Before S. L. Muller, Esq., R.M.] LOVEGROVE V. BOTHWELL, Mr. Nelson appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. W. Pitt for defendant, who was not present. Mr. Nelson stated the case, which was a claim of £7O for damages. The plaintiff wrote to the defendant asking him if he would undertake the sorting of his wool at Flaxbourne and Kekerangu at the same rate (205.) as last year, finding as then two assistants. Defendant wrote back agreeing to do so, and subsequently entered into an agreement, and sorted the wool at Flaxbourne, for which he was duly paid. He then proceeded to Kekerangu, and sorted for one day only. He then left without giving any notice, but wrote from the Clarence that he would not be able to complete his agreement. Plaintiff then had to remain and sort the wool himself until he found a competent sorter to take the place of defendant, and whom he had to pay at the rate ot 25 s., and find two men for him. When the bales defendant had sorted were opened, they were found to have been scamped, and therefore had to be re-sorted. Plaintiff now sought to recover for the loss sustained by having to employ a sorter at a higher rate, and finding him two men, and the cost of re-sorting the work he did do. Had plaintiff been unable to find another soi’ter, the damages would have been much more, Mr. G. F. Lovegrove, the plaintiff, was called and substantiated the above. David Henilci'gpji, shearer for plaintiff at * K.e kerah giqsaid defendant commenced sorting, but only worked one day when he left, but did not know he had gone till afterwards. By Mr. W. Pitt; Did not hear him complain of the sheds before he left on Sunday morning. Thomas Whitjmm said he was a woolsome wool; was engaged by plaintiff to class his wool this year. The shed was too small lor the

number of shearers, meaning there was ample 100 m for the work, and for sorting, but not to get it out of the way quick enough. Had to go through a number of bales which had been sorted befoi'e, being ordered to do so by plaintiff, and sorted all the wool which went from Kekerangu. The wool had not been classed in the most approved manner, both clothing and combing wool being mixed in the same bale. Plaintiff did not wish it in more than four classes : Ist and 2nd clothing, and Ist and 2nd combing, these were all mixed together. There were more than four sorts, but he re-sorted them, which was four times more difficult than sorting| at first. By Mr. Pitt: Don’t know who first packed them ; would not go on to a station to do part of the wool for my own character’s sake. It would have been much better if there had been more room ; there was light enough. Had Inow finished sorting ; had 17,000 fleeces to sort, and could do 1,400 daily. Mr. Lovegrove, being recalled, said he gave instructions to defendant how to class the wool. The bales were opened to make them all the same size as this man was doing them. There were all sorts in a bale when we came to examine them. The Court held that there was decidedly a breach of contract. Defendant had agreed to sort at 205., and then left without reason, but little damage had been proved. The contractee was entitled to recover any excess he was put to. The cost was 255., which made the damage about £4 5 s., and two men were employed to assist for a fortnight, say £6, which would be the damage allowed in this case, with £l7 3s. costs. LOVEGROVE V. W. ATWOOD. Mr. Pitt appeared for defendant. Mr. Nelson, for plaintiff, said it was desired to make an example of defendant, who had, after agreeing to shear for plaintiff, left his employment. He put in an agreement showing that he agreed to shear at Kekerangu after he had finished at Flaxbourne, but, being unstamped, tendered the duty and fine, 2s. G. F. Lovegrove deposed that he was manager for Messrs. Clifford and Weld, and owner of Kekerangu station. Defendant made the agreement with him, now produced. He paid him at Flaxbourne, and when he wished him to go on to Kekerangu on the terms of the agreement, he promised to go, but did not do so, and in consequence he was put to a loss of his services, being unable to supply the vacancy, which delayed the work three days and threw him into wet weather. Had suffered £6 damage by having to keep 12 men 3 days longer than he otherwise should have done, inclusive of shearers. By Mr. Pitt: Finished shearing on November 9th, and could not get a man in his stead. He did not complain of food being bad, or scabby. Had heard of a complaint by another man, but not him, nor knew his reason for leaving. Mr. Pitt said this was purely a case of assessment of damages. The Court said there was no doubt but this was a breach of contract, as defendant went away at the last moment and deceived the plaintiff. Justice required that such cases should be marked, and he would allow the men’s food, £3 125., with 30s. costs. v TEMPLETON V. E. CLARKE. Gilbert Templeton, of Awatere, claimed £3 18s. 3d. for goods supplied. Defendant did not appear. For a technical reason judgment was reserved till next Court day. TRUSTEES NIXON AND SWEENEY V. NIXON. John M. Hutcheson, one of the Trustees, claimed £3 ss. for rent due, but had since discovered that 30s. of the amount had been paid without his knowledge. By defendant: Could not say how much was due without his books at the time the summons was issued. The sum claimed was due this day. Defendant said only 10s. was due when the summons was issued. The Court said plaintiff could not summons a man for rent before it was due, and not then till he had x’efused to pay it. Plaintiff said he had been informed othei’wise, which had misled him. Plaintiff nonsuited, defendant allowed 12s. costs.