MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2640, 6 September 1881, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMAUU—THIS DAY.

(Before B. Beetham, Esq., R.M., and E. Elworthy, Esq., J.P.) POLICE CASES. Two men, charged with being drunk and disorderly, were fined 5s each. CIVIL CASES. Judgment by default was given in the following cases :—Sutter v Baird— Claim, £79 13s ; Cork v W. Dundas— Claim, £5. Burgess v Collier —Claim, £3 15s 6d. Mr Toss will for defendant. £1 of the account was for dray hire, and the balance for drinks supplied by plaintiff, who is an hotelkeeper^ Judgment was given for plaintiff for £l, and costs, £2 12s, T. Ilowley v. Union Steam Shipping Company —Claim £1 17s 9d. His Worship now gave judgment in this case, which was heard on Tuesday last. The question was chiefly one of law, and the plaintiff had relied on cases in which advertisements published regarding times of sailing of vessels had been held to constitute contracts. Where these were the only documents they were sufficient to constitute a contract ; but wiiere a ticket with conditions of contract was issued and accepted, the ticket became the

chief document, and in this case such a ticket had been taken by the plaintiff. He, must give judgment for the defendants.

Rutherford Bros, v Smith —Claim £33 6s 6d.

Mr Hamersley for plaintiffs, and Mr Jameson for defendant. This was a claim arising out of a cropping contract, the plaintiffs suing for .payment for repairs done to fences damaged by the croppers, for firewood taken by them, for rent (15s per acre) for 20 acres of fallow land which they ought to have cropped but did not, and for one.or two.smaller items. li. Rutherford stated that the firewood was taken from his bush, even after he had -' denied permission to take jt ; defendant denied that it was taken out of the bush, but was drift wood obtained by themselves or their men out of a river bed. The2o acres not cropped was separated from some of the rest only by a small gully, according to the plaintiff ; according to the defendant,by a gully so wide that he did not think it belonged to the block at all, particularly as. having been ploughed two years, it \••.as -Covered with strong tussocks again. Judgment was given for plaintiffs for £l9,.the claim for firewood being .struck out'.- On account of there being Eo'mc doubt as to the chief item, that for rent, each party must pay their own costs. ■

Same v. Campbell, claim £7. The claim was--for the returni of £7, alleged- to have been, improperly paid. to the defendant. It appears to be the custom in the pastoral districts, for sheepowners to lend their men to each other in the mustering reason ; the men’s salaries running on as usual, - though they receive special payment from the person whom they assist. In this case Campbell was n shepherd in the employment of Mr John Rutherford, whose run adjoins that of the plaintiff’s, and he was sent to assist them in mustering, and claiming to he paid for the week he was paid £7 for 14 days mustering, the plaintiff sought to recover the amount on the ground that special arrangements between Mr John Rutherford and his brothers enabled the former to send Campbell to assist them without payment. In giving judgment for defendant Ills -Worship pointed out that the probabilities were all in his favor, as if a special agreement, contrary to the usual custom, had been made between the brothers, the plaintiffs would scarcely have paid, the money without, protest, whereas the evidence showed it was paid voluntarily. [Left sitting.]