MAGISTERIAL.

Patea Mail, Volume VIII, Issue 1038, 23 May 1883, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

PATEA—YESTERDAY. (Before C. A. Wray, Esq., B. M. ) CIVIL CASE. Bassett v. Symes Bros.— Claim, £l3. Mr Barton for plaintiff, Mr Hamerton for defendants. This was a claim for certain grain thre-hed by the plaintiff for tho defendants. William Bassett, the plaintiff, stated : I am a steam thresher and have been threshing in the district for some time, I did some threshing for the defendants on the 15 16, and 17th March, for which I have not been paid. I received a cheque for the employees about the machine which I distributed among them. The work was completed on the morning of the 17th March. There was a verbal agreement between the defendants and I, but no written fare. I agreed to do the threshing at Is per bag for wheat and oats, and los per hour for grass seed. The defendants requested me to thresh the grass seed. The weather was fine, but previous to my coming had been very wet. That effected the grain considerably, so much so that it was impossible to thresh thoroughly clean. I sent an account to the defendants but no notice was taken of it, I then saw Mr W. Symes at Waverley and asked him for the money, but he told me to see Mr Hamerton a' out that. Mr Symes told me before I finished the work that he wouldn’t pay me because the work was not done in a proper manner. He did not tell me that he would not pay me till I was more than half way through the work. I have had 13 years experience in a thresher. I have given satisfaction in every case sa re this. There was a slight ill-feeling between the defendants aud I, as they wanted to take charge of some men that were under my control. Previous to this I had a disagreement with Mr A. Symes. Cross-examined ; I did not feed the machine. A man named Karslake fed it He has.,been with me seven seasons. I would know if he were, feeding the machine properly if I were within hearing. I could tell by the sound if he was putting sheaves through without untying them. He may have put one through, but that would not influence the threshing —it would be injurious to the machine, but not to the farmer, I have not lost 15 per cent, of the wheat, but I consider I have saved 97 per cent. I altered the macbißo in the afternoon of the 16th, when requested to' do so by Mr Symes, but I had to realter, it. I don’t remember Mr Symes saying anything to me about clearing up. It is an impossibility to handle the grain without wasting some, There was not from 5 to 6 bushbls of grain left on the ground when the threshing was finished. Mr Symes complained repeatedly, and said he would not pay rno if the wheat was not threshed better. I told him I was doing my best. All the grain was threshed—top and bottom sheaves. My machine will thresh from 600 to 1400 bushels per day. By Mr Barton : Neither of the Messrs Symes complained to me of sheaves going through tied. If tho sheaves were wet it would prevent the proper threshing. It requires a good deal of practice to know how to adjust the machine. There was no more grain left on the ground- than what is the usual occurrence. By Mr Hamerton : Mr Albert Symes did not not point out to me a sheaf on the stack that had gone through the machine without being untied. A sheaf could not do so as it has to pass through a space no more than a quarter of an inch wide. John Hudson ; I am a settler, and I was at Messrs Symes’s farm when Mr Bassett was working there in March. I remember a conversation between Mr Symes and Mr Bassett with regard to adjusting the machine. Mr S3 7 nies did not seem satisfied with-tlrft work ; Mr Bassett said he was doing the . beat he could. There were some remarks as to altering the machine and Mr Bassett did alter it. This was on the second day—about midday I think. My work was the sewing of the bags. I can state from experience, that the threshing was done as well as any machine could do it. Of the oats and wheat put through, some were wet and some were dry. I could see the machine from where I was, but I could not see the feeding. If a sheaf were put into the machine tied it would make a different sound. A tied sheaf may go through now and again by accident but very seldom, only about once a day. I did not see anything like five bushels of grain on the ground when we left. There has been less waste-with Mr Bassett’s machine than with any I have seen yet. I could not speak as to the quantity of grain which went through the machine. Cross-examined : I have been employed on three oi four threshing machines. The wheat is supposed to go through the feeder’s hands and his duty is to spread it, If the machine was properly adjusted it would be impossible for an ordinary sheaf tied to go through. I went away with the machine and after it left X did not inspect the ground. William Henry Karslake : I havo been in the employment of Mr Bassett feeding a threshing machine. I was feeding the machine at Byrnes Bros’. I do not remember putting in any sheaves without unbinding them. ' If one was on the stack at the other end it did not pass through the machine. Some of the straw was very wet and some dry. That would make a difference in threshing. Mr Bassett had the adjusting of the machine. The machine was working satisfactorily. The amount of grain left on the ground was not unusual. I have been feeding for 6 machines. I have never met with any complaints as to my mode of feeding the machine. I did not examine the straw stack. I can tell by the feeding if the work was well done. • Cross-examined : Mr Albert Symes did not to my knowledge bring up any ears of corn to me and tell me that I was not feeding satisfactorily. On the afternoon of the 16th Mr Patton did not complain to me ef the manner in which I was feeding, 1 did not say ‘‘ I don’t care a so long as I don’t throw the belt off.” Mr Symes was complaining of the work, but I could see no leason why he should. I did not menton to either of the defendants

that the wheat was wet. I think from 98 to 99 per cent would come out. Mr Albert Symcs did not say to me that unless the wheat was threshed better he would not pay Mr Bassett. Robert Mclntosh : I am a farmer and have had some threshing done by Mr Bassett. The Inst witness fed the machine. The threshing was well done. Mr Hamerton objected to tins evidence, as it had nothing to do with the case in question. Witness continued : There was no more than the ordinary amount of wasto. X did not see any sheaves going into the machine hound. Mr Karslake seemed a very careful feeder. Cross-examined : My wheat was wet. It threshed out very well. This was the case for the plaintiff. Mr Hamerton, in opening the case for the defence, called Walter Symes, who stated : I am one of tho defendants, and am a farmer at Waverley. I engaged Mr Bassett to thresh at Is a bag for all firsts, seconds given in. It was understood that (here should be four bushels in a bag. Mr Bassett showed the amount he threshed out at 171 bags, but there wore only about 163 according to weight. Mr Bassett commenced the threshing on the 15th March, and worked very well the first day. I was away from tho farm on the 16th, from early in the morning till the afternoon. When I came back my brother told me that Mr Bassett was putting stuff through the machine without threshing it. I told Mr Bassett about it, and asked him to alter the machine, but he would not, I then sent for one of my brothers as a witness, and again asked Mr Bassett to alter (he machine. He said, “I will see you d first ; I wont alter my machine or stop.” I said “Mr Bassett, this is my witness, and I wont pay you.” He said “Very well.” I should say that from 20 to 30 bags of wheat were left in the straw. We got 4s per bushel for the wheat. There is at least 80 bushels of wheat wasted in the slack ; the wheat was not wet; it was so dry that’Mr Payne, the miller, took every bag, and we got market price for the whole of it. I spoke to Mr Bassett more than once that afternoon ; he did not ask me to discharge him. There was a great waste about the machine. Cross-examined : While I was on the ground on the loth no disagreement took place. Mr Bassett worked very satisfactorily when I was on the farm on the morning of the 16th. We took the tops on the stacks some time previous, and dried them. Th* wheat was perfectly dry when threshed. The 20 or 30 bags of wheat in the straw were waste. By the Court : I attribute the wheat lost to careless feeding—thrown so that the machine could not thresh properly, also to the machine not being properly adjusted. If the wheat was damp it might make a difference. I can’t say positively what amount was wasted. By Mr Hamerton: The wheat did Hot get wet after we had dried it before it got threshed. This witness’ evidence was corroborated by Messrs Albert, Edgar, and Oscar Symes, Thomas Patton, and Capt Walkinton. After counsels’ address His Worship reserved bis decision till next Thursday.