Magistrates' Court.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXVII, Issue 3536, 17 June 1905, Page 2

Magistrates' Court.

FOXTON, 19? 5 ’ (Before Mr A. D. Thomson, Sl/J STREET FIGHTING. Frederick Ctem, charged with a breach of the peace at Foxton on May «o by fighting in Mam Street f convicted and fined 10s and 7s cost. Erfle# on a similar charge was mulct iff ift# arnount. d r u x K e nNe fftiv H, Bradcock, on a charg'd of drunkenness, was fined ss, without costs. A prohibition order was also issued against the defendant. BIWacHeS OF EDUCATION act. Harrt' Richmond, James Doyle, (three charges), WM Hamer, Mrs R. Andrew; arid U. H, each fined. *s witbovff costs ior breachw & the' Education Act m failing to send td School the number of times requlfcd/ POSSESSION OF A TENEMENT.’ Hewett v. Aldridge.— This was a claim for recovery of a tenement. Mr Moore appeared for _ the plaintiff rad Mr Harden for (fa£ defendant, Mr Moore said on©’ c-latim by tne defence was for the protection tff the Statute of Limitations, the deieutmni having been in undisturbed possession for Silit years. As a matter of fact if the Point Was pressed the six years would not expire the 31st of the press'd t IPdrithi There was 'also a countef'Slaiiri dii account of a range put into the prttHW*, JuribaT there was a dispute regarding in* title, which, Mr Moore claimed, WM . an incidental matter and did iiOt affect the present case. Proceeding, Mr Modre detailed the facts of the case, dsfdiWs.; In ifyj the property was in possession of Henry Aldridge, and in 1899 wasconVdy’Od W o'nOMorfort Quinn. The defendant had «* possession ever since, and had paid ili3 rent, though repeated applications had been made to him for it. He called t. Quinn, blacksmith, of Canterbury, a brother Of the late Morton Quinn, who formerly had property m Avenue Road, Foxton. Henry Aldridge now occupied it. His brother, wittiteS understood, had a life interest in Ihe land. His brother died on 22nd July last. Arrangements had since been made to sell the property, but could not be completed before this case was settled. Cross-examined by Mr Harden, Witness admitted sending a tewgram to Aldridge telling him he had sold the property to Mrs Hoskins, and he (Aldridge) had better vacate it. Witness sold the property to Mrs Hoskins in Masterton for £SO f he was selling whatever interest he and his brother and sister had in their brother’s estate. Mrs Hoskin had lived with witness’s dead brother as his wife for some time up to the time of his death. In J anuary last witness was in 1 H oxton and asked Aldridge for possession, and he had replied that he “ would see me first.’’ His reason was that he said he had been induced to sign a deed by misrepresentation. Alf. Fraser gave evidence of having witnessed H. Aldridge’s signature to plaintiffs deed of title. Mr Harden submitted that on the evidence a non-suit should be granted. So far as was apparent the defendant must be looked upon as a tenant at at will. So far there had been no notice to quit, although defendant had been informed that proceedings would be taken.

Mr Moore submitted that a letter forwarded to defendant had plainly the torce of a notice to quit. Mr Harden in reply contended that the first necessary step—the fixing ot a definite time in which possession was required—had not been taken, and therefore it could not be a proper notice to quit. The S.M. said he must grant a nonsuit. Defendant was apparently at least a tenant at will, and was entitled to a formal notice to quit, which could be given forthwith. I hough the notice given may have been included as notice to quit still he (the S.M.) must hold with defendant’s contention. Costs {£i is) were granted. The counter-claim was dropped. WEBB V. WALKER. This was a claim for £6, value of five pigs which died through eating a quantity of stores (including wax vestas) left inside a paddock contrary to orders. Mr Harden appeared for plaintiff and Mr R. Moore for defendant. Mr Harden called— Edward Dyson Webb, farmer, plaintiff residing about three miles out ot Foxtoh, who stated that in;Aprillast he allowed three men to occupy a hut on his property. Defendant supplied the men. with stores. Witness noticed de fendant’s son bringing stores and told him to put them inside the hut, as there were pigs about the (paddock, On going into the paddock at a later date, witness saw a litter of paper, matchboxes, etc., inside the gate, and next day, three pigs died, Mr. Robinson opened them in witness’s presence, and found the insides burned away. There was a strong smell of phosphorus. A day or two later, two more died and on being opened were found in a similar condition. The five pigs were worth £6 10. Examined by Mr. Moore —Witness in Robinson’s presence, told storeman to put goods in hut. There were two dozen paper boxes of matches among the goods, according to the invoice with them. The section was within the borough, and witness was no aware of the bye-law prohibiting pig being kept within 300 feet of a road o dwelling bouse Witness had bough the pigs—a litter of ten with mothe.J —for £3. The young ones were we j fed and had increased in value to th amount claimed. They were well-fed e but pigs would eat anything lyingabout. Mr. Harden : On the same day four loaves were placed inside the hut, and other goods at the gate—by the same man. To Court; Other goods in parcels were potatoes, derby tobacco, sunlight soap, cigarettes, and meat.

Saw derby tobacco chewed o nb the gate. Fred Robinson, called by plaintiff, farm hand working for plaintiff gave corroborative evidence. When he opened the pigs he found the lining of stomach burned out, and in three a smell of phosphorus, the wax rtß'b of matches, and other two opened ater were burned similarly r.„j. 've was no smell of matches. Had no dopb^S ß ' ver ® P 0 «° ned by phosphorus o fn.'* tcl J es - Witness saw Mr Walker and to him about The Plaintiff, stated that the pigs lost were similar Rights to «fome supphcd to Messrs Shau bc^ a “ d Hdwan in December last, an U tor which he was paid +d per lb dress.-d. Wm. J. Osboldstone, pork butchery gave evidence that about the beginning of April last he was negotiating for the purchase of some pigs from the plain* tiff. The price was to Ft? 4“ but some he wanted about . + b e ot April could not be supplied owing to their having been poisoned. This was plaintiffs case, For the defence Mr Moore called— Ed-vin Walker, son of the defendant. He fimemhered taking goods out t# pla a tiff s place. On the last occasion - the goods included two or three packets ot matches. The goods were to b* left in a whare about a chain from the road. On this occasion he kit the? groceries, etc., inside the gate. Som» bl’sftd he had placed inside the whawdoor. the first occasion when’ witness £«oJs goods there he saw Robinson and fIW, an( f the former told him to leave thtf things there; he said nothing about pigs. Witness did not see any pigs, but then? were some fowl* about. , To Mr Harden : Robinsoil did no* say the goods were to be put in the wL'.arc, but witness did so as he con* sidered it a safer place. The third time witness took goods he put bread into the whare, and left the other stuff at the gate as it was neatly dinner time and he was in a hurry. -p'/y Bench: When witness letft the good* at the gate he did not see Robinson at iMS place, nor did he see any pigs about. , „ George Hughes, a farmer, ot Foxton, stated he had seen pigs running about plaintiffs place at the time in question. The outside value of an y °f these rt'ch’ild be about 10F, excepting the mother. , , ... To Mr Harden; The average weight of pigs four to tour and a-hah months old would be 70 toSolb, and they would be worth at that time 4d per lb. Mr IT. Walker, the plaintiff, storfa* keeper, produced written orders received for the goods. There were n* instructions as to delivery on any of the orders. Witness was told by Clancy, one of the fan ordering the goods, that pigs had the goods, and he had said he would not charge for them. ■ ’ This was the evidence for the defence, and Mr Moore in addressing the Court contended that by keeping pigs in a manner contrary to the byelaws plaintiff had been guilty of con* tribu'ory negligence. Further, he submitted that the leaving of the good* at the gate on this occasion was apt an unauthorised act, and therefore the delivery, though admittedly irregular, could not be considered as rendering the deliverer liable for the damage which ensued. Mr Harden, m replying, said the defendant admitted liability if it was shown that there was negligence. Two witnesses stated that the boy was told to put the goods into a whare, and was told why. Poison was left cm the ground in a negligent manner and occasioned serious damage. His Worship said he must find on the evidence for the plaintiff, and give judgment accordingly Fr £6 and £5 I2S COStS. AN AGISTMENT CASE. Easton v. Stevens, 1 Easton and Austin. Mr. H. G. Moore appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Harden for the defendent. The claim was for the return of 32 sheep and damages for detention, and for the value of wool shorn from them. . Charles T. Easton, plaintiff, gave 1 evidence of having bought 32 sheep from Mr. A. Symons, which were grazed on the Moutoa Estate. .He had never been able to get these sheep since. At the end of 1904 witness received an account to 30th r November and then instructed Mr. R. Moore to write and demand that the ; sheep be put into a yard so that be c mid identify. In reply he was informed that the ’ firm did not recognise any sheep of • Mr. Symons; but the balance of a number of sheep purchased by him were in a paddock behind the wool shed, and he had not lifted them although requested to do so. Subsequently witness and Mr, Symons w ent ’ to Moutoa, but could not find the sheep. They would be worth about £i each, and witness claimed for 256 lb. ol wool for two seasons, that being about the quantity they would have clipped, at 6d. per lb. for one year and Bd. for the second. If the firm did not claim for grazing, which would be at the rate of id. per week each, ha would not ask for damages. To the Bench ; none of the sheep had died, and they would be brokenmouthed now. He would have to pay £1 a head for similar sheep now, fat. To Mr. Harden : In May, 1903, witness bought from his brother Fred the number of sheep for which he was billed. Witness detailed how he had paid for them. When bought, the sheep, 388, were left in the yard at the Moutoa estate. He would swear this was the only deal he had had with his 1 brother. Prior to that he bought 32 sheep from Mr. Symons, who drove the sheep to the Moutoa Estate by his ’ instructions on the same day that wilness saw the Symons’ sheep they were about two miles from the 388, on 1 another part of the estate. ! Mr. Moore pointed out that the , Court bad already decided that the plaintiff had bought 47® sheep, for whicn he had had judgement given 1 against him. , J Mr. Harden continued his crossexamination. Witness said the brand | on the sheep he bought from Symoas was C S ; he could not remember the

amalfc. He did not agree to buy ■any more sheep from his brother, the 470, which he had always thought was ■3BB. Witness took no tally himself. On September 22nd, 1903, witness received the last lot from the estate, 35, making, as he thought, all he had bougat from his brother Fred, though there were still the 32 he had bought from Symons. A week after that, witness had been warned by ms brother not to go on the place. He had *not asked for the 32 during the pa r ot year, except through Mr. Moore. V/itness had told J. Morgan, who looked after the estate, that the 32 were Symons ° f having sold 32 sheep to C. T. Fasten, and taken them to Moutoa. 1 . Duncan, Government Stock Inspector, stated that during t e pnn* months of the year, on Moutoa Estate which was wet on the flats but jdry on ifhe ridges, the mortality would pioEiiafcly be 20 or 30 per ceht. To Mr Moore ; At the present time the market price of sheep “early double what it was two years ago. Good fat full-mouth sheep were woit^ up to 2615 each. Mr Karden, in his f or the defence, contended had been no evidence that plaintiff had applied for •delivery of the 32 Sheep now claimed. He submitted that although at present only six of these particular sheep were to be found on the estate there was no evidence of negligence on the part •f the defendants. ~ .. , Mr Moore, in replying, said the defendant’s letter of December last admitted in effect that the sheep were there and now his client wanted them, jhe onus now lay upon the defendant* \o prove what had become of the sb'oep if they were not now on the The Magistrate, in giving judgment, said that the claim was onerin detinno, and there must be a demand, which certainly made in plaintiffs lette J? f December last. This demand was not. laowever, acceded to. The plaintiff had been guilty of delay in th * £*tter and so it was now unreasonable fox him to expect the defendants ‘o jjconat IS detail for any not now available. In the time that had P as f®£ * reasonable to suppose that therewemd Inave been considerable mortality. He would assess the mortality at flo per .cent, and give judgment for 16 sheep at 10s a head, which would be to, value in December last, settin £ , 1 claim for damages against the cost of grazing for the period. Costs amounting to £3 wera allowed. .