R. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 47, 23 January 1884, Page 2

R. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

(Before J. Booth, Esq., R.M.) YESTERDAY. Civil Cases. J, ROSIE V. J. HAMON. Claim on judgment summons for £8 Ba. There was no appearance of defendant. Mr. Greenwood read a letter from the defendant, stating he was willing to pay £1 per month, but could not do more on account of sickness. The plaintiff agreeing to take the £1 a month, an order was made to that effect; in default of payment four days’ imprisonment. TEAT AND FRYER V. J. JAMES. Claim on judgment summons. No appearance of the defendant. A letter was read from the defendant, stating that he could not pay the amount on account of having received an injury to the leg, and which prevented his working, The case was therefore adjourned for one month. ARAPETA TEHAU V. 8. LOCKE, Mr. Turton for plaintiff, and Mr. Brassey for defendant, Mr, Turton explained that this was a claim for £1 17s. The plaintiff had been engaged to shear sheep by Mr. Walker, the defendant’s agent at £1 per 100. The plaintiff sheared 182, when the pen became empty, and after waiting some considerable time for it to be re-filled, which was not done, he went to another pen, and started shearing. This made Mr. Walker angry, and he sent them away, saying he would not pay them for what they had already done. Hence this action. The plaintiff sued for the number of sheep he had shorn. The plaintiff deposed that he was engaged by Mr. Walker to shear sheep at £1 per 100. He named others that had been engaged with him to do the same work. On the first of December two of them commenced shearing lambs. Mr. Brassey wished to know what that had to do with the case. As a matter of fact he admitted that plaintiff had shorn 182 sheep, and that the price for doing the same was at a £1 per 100. Examination continued—He had told all of the agreement with Mr. Walker for shearing the sheep. After shearing 182 sheep left off, because he was stopped by Mr. Walker. After he stopped he asked Mr. Walker for payment, which the latter refused. To Mr. Brassey —He understood what Mr. Walker said, and Mr. Walker understood what he said. He did not think he could say how many sheep he was to shear. He was to stay there until all the sheep were shorn. It was stated to him to stick to his own pen only. Sometimes the pens are cleaned out after the first lot are shorif. The pen he was shearing in was a night pen. After shearing the lot in the pen he went to a pen near the stable, and commenced shearing there. Mr. Walker told him he had no right to do so. He did not swear at Mr. Walker for not keeping the pen full. When Mr. Walker went away all the men knocked off. He did not tell them to knock off work. To Mr. Turton—He requested his pen to be kept filled, which is the general custom. He shouted out to Mr. Walker that he wanted this done. The white man was near enough to hear all that took place. By the Court—lt was not usual to take a night-pen and then go to breakfast. There was no such arrangement made. It is the custom when only one sheep is left to call out for more, and the plaintiff did so on this occasion. Mr. Walker was close by, and must have heard him call. Harte Kootia was present at the time when the agreement was made. Mr. Walker had

urdered them to atop work. There ware some vary strong words used on that t ocaasion. Walker told plaintiff to stop clipping sheep in that shed, and not to come there again, By Mr. Brassey—When they were quarrelling he (witness) called out and told Walker that plaintiff had not been kept supplied with sheep. Walker told witness that if he did not cease talking to him in that manner he (witness) must go outside. Had been shearing for over six years, and could say that it was not the custom to finish the nightpen and then go to breakfast. When this dispute occurred it was before breakfast. The custom is when one man has finished his night-pen to get some sheep out of another one where they had not finished, Te Amo was present when this dispute occurred. Arabeta had finished his pen and called out for more sheep. Arabeta left off work in coneequence of Walker threatening td turn them all out, Walker told Arabeta to cease work, He did not understand mubn English, but could understand that Arabeta made all the arrangements with Mr. Walker; Mr, Turton Maid he had two other wit» nesses, but as they were the same as the last two he would not occupy the time of the Court by calling them. Mr. Walker was manager for Mr, Locke and had been engaged with sheep for upwards of twenty years. Agreed with the plaintiff to shear the sheep for £1 per 100. It was distinctly understood that everyone was to keep to his own pen. Had never heard the plain; tiff call out for more sheep. No money was to be paid until all the sheep had been fin; ished. There were plenty of sheep close td the plaintiff when he finished his pen, but he passed by them all and came up to the other end of the shed and commenced shearing right on the top of the sorter; Did not tell him td knock off. The plaintiff became very abusive. Told the plaintiff to be more careful in shearing his sheep. Had been put to considerable loss and trouble through the men going away. By Mr. Turton—The plaintiff had sheared for witness before. He was not a good shearer. The plaintiff was very abusive while finishing the sheep he was engaged on. Asked the plaintiff to go on shearing after breakfast. Hid not tell him to clear out and not to come back to the shed,

Clauson Anderson had been amongst sheep in Poverty Bay for thirteen years; In some sheds shearers have a pen to themselves; but in others they have a pen between two. Remembered the morning in question. When the plaintiff had finished his pen he walked up to the other end of the shed and commenced shearing right on top of the sorting-table. Mr. Walker spoke to plaintiff and told him that if he was not satisfied with the arrangements he could leave. By Mr. Turton—Mr. Walker told plaintiff that if he could not keep to the arrangements he had better leave.

Mr. Brassey said the amount in the case was but small, but the principle involved was of considerable importancej as Mr. Walker and others in his position were entirely at the mercy of people like the plaintiff, who had behaved in a very wrong manner. He submitted that they should be made an example of. Mr, Turton said this might be very well from his learned friend’s point of view, but the Natives might be got to shear 999 sheep out of 1,000, and then dismissed without any payment. The question was* were these men dismissed by order, or had they left of their own accord ?

His Worship said the evidence had been to the effect that plaintiff had infringed the regulations, and he did not think the evidence had shown that the plaintiff had been dismissed. Mr. Walker had asked the plaintiff to go on with his work after breakfast, and he had refused to do so; The verdict would be for defendant. LUKE V. HARRIES AND LINCOLN. Claim £8 15s. on a judgment summons. Mr. Robinson stated that the defendant had agreed to pay 30s. on next Saturday, and 30s. per month afterwards, until the whole debt had been paid, in default seven days, ADAIR V. MULLOOLY. Mr. Brassey for plaintiff, and Mr. McDougal for defendant, Claim £2B. Mr. Brassey stated that this action was taken upon a warrantry given with a horse which Mr. Adair had purchased from the defendant for £2O. Mr. W. Adair, merchant, of Gisborne, knew Mullooly. That (produced) was a receipt signed by Mullooly for the sum of £2O for a horse. Had seen the horse in Mr. Fryer’s stables, and on looking at it noticed a slight blemish on the hind leg. Bought the horse on account of Mr. Mullooly saying that that was the only blemish which the mare had. Found afterwards that she was blind of one eye. When he told Mullooly of this defect, he (Mullooly) said he knew that, and would take her back at a reduced price. Mullooly had eventually refused to take her back. Had the horse been sound, with the exception of the blemish on her hind leg, she would have been worth £2O. She was not worth more than half the money. Had paid £8 for breaking her in.

By Mr. McDougal—Did not ask Mullooly for a written warranty, Had known Mullooly for many years, and therefore had not asked him for a warranty. Had asked him whether she was sound with the exception of her Rind leg, and Mullooly had said she was. Mullooly said she had been broken into saddle. Mullooly asked £2B for her. Offered £22 for her, if Mullooly would take £9 10a. in goods; and £7 in cash, and the remainder to go as a set-off against a judgment, Considered the horse absolutely blind. The first time he found that she was blind was the day after the purchase. Told Mullooly about the horse being blind about three weeks after purchase. Had hoard what Mullooly’s wife had said about the horse, and thought he (witness) would bide hie time. Could not give any reason why he had not communicated with Mullooly from October 27 to December 13. Had put the mare in the trap once, and found that she was blind, and had then turned her out into the paddock. Tried her a month after he had found that she was blind. When he saw Mullooly, he told him that the horse was blind, and that he must take her back, or else he (witness) should sue him. The mare had met with an accident whilst being broken in. Could not tell whether she had sustained a wound which necessitated stitching. Could not see the marks of the stitches. Had been told that she had been stitched up. Had taken several opinions as to her value. G. Burnand, livery-stable-keeper, remembered the above transaction and was present when Mullooly sold Mr. Adair the horse alluded to. Mullooly said the only defect the mare had was an enlargement of one of the joints. He broke her in for Mr. Fryer found that the mare was blind in one Mr. Adair had the mare away and tried n</ after the accident. The accident was only a flesh wound and was sown up. By Mr. McDougall—Understood that Mullooly had guaranteed that the horse had no other defect than that on the leg. The blindness was discoverable. If he had been asked to thoroughly examine the mare he should have discovered the blindness. Mr. Fryer was angaged to break her in. Re-examined by Mr. Brassey—By all appearances the eye looked sound with the exception of a darkness over it. Had not examined the horse until the blindness had been found out. B. C. Fryer was the proprietor of the Masonic stables and remembered breaking in a horse for Mr. Adair. Mr. Adair was the first one to call his attention to the horse being blind. There was nothing whatever to show the blindness. The value of the horse was about £lO or £l2. The wound which was inflicted during the breaking in was only a flesh wound. By Mr. McDougall—The accident happened about a month after the purchase. Did not discover the blindness until after the horse was broken in. Could not remember how long it was after the purchase. This closed the case for the plaintiff. Mr. McDougall said he had great difficulty in understanding the complaint. Was it an alleged fraud or was it breach of warranty. He then quoted several authorities for showing that the complainant could not claim that the horse be taken back. The claim was for £2O, but the plaintiff could only ask for damages for breach of contract in the case. There had been an attempt to prove an express verbal warranty, but as there had been a written contract and no warranty mentioned this could not stand. He confidently moved for a nonsuit. Mr. Brassey stated that the matter was

aletr enough, and hia learned friend’s arguments were futile. His Worship decided not to grant a nonsuit. Janies Mallooly was the defendant, and remembered selling the horse in question to Mr, Adair. There was nothing said about a warrantry. Mr. Adair asked for a warrantry, and he (witness) said he would never give a warrantry for any horse. Mr. Adair afterwards closed the bargain, and paid me £7 out of the £2O mentioned in the receipt. Mr. Adair did not tell me about the defective eye for about two months after the sale. Mr. Adair met him in Ormond, and asked him Why he (witness) had not Baid his horse was blind. Adair wanted him to take the horse back, and pay £23. Witness refused on account of the lapse of time. The horse was not blind. Had the horse five years. By Mr. Berry—Got the cheque for about £7 from Mr. Adair. That was his signature for £2O, Did not receive the cheque and cash it, Some one else cashed it, and he got his balance, The horse was not blind. Had not Offered to take the mare back for less money, w By the Court—Did not ask Mr, Adair what wanted back for the mare, Mr. McDougal then addressed the Court, and pointed out the confliction of the evidence as to any warrantry haring been given. The document produced was evidently a contract, and not a receipt. There was no warrantry mentioned in the document, and therefore no warrantry could be proved outside that document. Would confidently ask for a verdict in favor of his client, Mr. Brassey, after remarking upon the length of time occupied by his learned friend, proceeded to review the evidence, and submitted that he was entitled to a verdict. His Worship was of opinion that there had been a guarantee. With respect to the claim, he could not agree that Mr. Adair was entitled to the £8 for the breaking-in. The judgment was therefore for the difference between £l2 and £2o—viz., £B—and costa, £5 3s. KEEFER V. K'xrn. Adjourned to Feb. Ist; ASSAULT. . Budwin, a native of Arabia, was charged with assaulting a native known as Barney by thretening to stab him with a knife which he (prisoner) held in his hand. The prisoner pleaded “Not guilty.” Mr. Robinson appeared for the accused, and advised him to plead “ Guilty.” The prisoner was in the employ of Mr, Bond, and had taken some drink. The prisoner had always been of good behaviour, and Mr. Bond would take care that he did not again offend. If his Worship would bind the prisoner over he thought it would meet all the requirements of the law; His Worship said he had a public duty to Perform, and must not dispose of the case before hearing the evidence. The man was possibly a dangerous fellow. He would hear the evidence. Barney, the Native complainant, then gave evidence as to the alleged assault. He heard the prisoner say, “ I will put the knife through your gut and take the gut out of you.” He (witness) was frightened, and took his child and ran away, together with his wife, and stood at a distance. The prisoner then put the knife, a sheath one, into his trousers. I told Mr. Bond.

By Mr. Robinson—The prisoner did not move; He only flourished the knife.

P. Bond, sheep-farmer, remembered the last witness complaining. Saw the prisoner On the occasion, and he had a knife. He complained that the Maoris were annoying him, and said that he would use his knife on them. He appeared as though he was suffering from delirium tremens. The prisoner was a hard-working man. His Worship said the charge had been fully proved, and he would be fined £5 and bound over to keep the peace for two months, himself in £2O and Mr. Bond in £2O. Costs, £1 6s. The Court then adjourned.