LEVIN MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Shannon News, 20 January 1922, Page 3

LEVIN MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 19, TM2. (Beiore ivlr J. L. Stout, S.M.) j CIVIL CASES. Judgment was given i'or plaintiff's l>y deiauit in me following civil cases: Jctmea Watson v. Thomas Goiusinuh, claim £4 5/, costs 8/; v. xx. Reiter v. l. McDonnell, clam. £2 8/6, costs £1 3/6; Allred Knight v. Ngapera Taueni, claim £25, costs £3 4/; Joplin, Stailard and Carmichael, Ltd. v. L. he Derry, claim £9, costs £1 10/6; J. W. Speight v. J. Howard, claim £B, costs 15/; Harvey and Co. v. D. Cole, claim £2, costs 8/; same v. Reginald Teal, claim £9 3/6, costs 15/. A DISPUTED SALE. A claim was entered hy George Wilkinson, farmer, of Shannon (Mr Adams}, against H. E. Williams, farmer, Tokomaru (Mr Blenkhorn), fur £l2, being the price of a heifer purchased from defendant, and which was warranted to calve in June, 1921, whereas the heifer was not in calf at the time of the sale and was,returned to the defendant by plaintiff. Defendant paid £2 2/2 into court, the amount 'realised from the subsequent sale of the heifer. George Wilkinson, the plain till’, stated he purchased a Jersey heifer from defendant in March, 1921, for which ho paid £l2, defendant stating that the heifer would come in in June or the beginning of July. Witness afterwards ascertained the heifer was not in calf, and told defendant so. Defendant said he would give another cow in exchange, but nothing came of it, arid witness sent the heifer back to defendant, at the same time sending him a notice to that effect. The heifer was in fair condition when witness returned her, and was not lame. Defendant sold the heifer, and ,sent witness’ a cheque for the proceeds, amounting to £2 odd, which he declined to accept. Gross-examined, witness said if the heifer was in calf when he bought ner, she should have shown some signs of it. He may have said if the heifer was in calf she would have, been worth £2O lo him. Defendant told witness that the heifer had been served. He admitted writing to defendant and saying that as\ his father had bought another cow, witness had no further use lor the heifer, and returned her to defendant’s paddock. He was pretty sure that he notified defendant that the heifer had been returned.

To Mr Adams: Witness personally posted the notice to the defendant? telling him of the return of the heifer. John Stewart WilkinsCm, plaintiff’s father, stated that he saw the heifer two days before his son returned her, and she was in good order and not lame. To Mr Blenkliorn: The. heifer was in as good condition when , she was returned as when she was bought. His Worship said plaintiff’s remedy was to have tendered the animal to defendant, and if he refused to accept, to have sold and made a claim for the balance, should there be a deficit. Albert Williams, farmer, Tokomaru, the defendant stated that Wilkinson asked if witness had a dairy cow lor sale, alid witness showed him the heifer, which was a very nice Jersey. Witness told plaintiff the heifer had been purchased in the Shannon saleyards as a springing heiier, and he believed she was in call'. Plaintiff said he would take the risk, but if she was in calf she would be worth £2O. Plaintiff afterwards told witness the heiier was not in call', and asked wit ness to graze her, which he said he could not do at the time. Later plaintiff said his lather had given him a cow and asked witness to take the heiier hack, which he. said he could not do. The heiier was put in his paddock some time after that. Witness purchased the animal as a springing heifer for £lO 10/. Cross-examined, witness said he never gave any date as to when' the heifer was likely to come in. He offered to swap another cow lor the heifer purely as a kindness to plaintiff. / Herbert Knowles, manager of defendant’s Shannon farm, gave evidence as LO' the poor condition of the heifer when she was returned to defendant’s farm. His Worship said the evidence of plaintiff was not very strong on the question of warranty, and it would appear defendant’s story was the more correct one. Plaintiff should have tendered the animal to defendant in a proper way, and if it was refused, to have sold and claimed fur the dll - ference. Judgment would be for the amount paid into court, no costs being allowed. CLAIM FOB. CARTAGE. P. Gill, carrier. Shannon, claimed from M. McGrath, Miranui, the sum ot 12/6 for the cartage* of/a piano. Plaintiff said that the claim was Jar thp Tpmfwa l' i>f ». niaon frOJU a Mr

Walters said deiendant would pay lor the removal.

Deieir 1 ant stated that he gave Walter’s the use oi the piano for twelve months, and thought Waiters should pay for the cartage to witness s place.

His Worship said deiendant had got his piano hack, and thought it only a fair thing that plaintiff should be paid for the work. He would* look upon plaintiff as being engaged by Welters on defendant’s behalf, and give judgment lor the amount claimed, with costs. f ANOTHER SHANNON CASE.

William Shields Jamieson, contractor, Shannon (Mr Adams) v. Jack King, carrier, Shannon (Mr Grant), claim £4B, being the price of lorry sold and delivered to deiendant, or in tlie alternative the return of the lorry in good order and condition, and me sum of £2O damages, representing the loss of the use of the lorry and tepreciatlon in value of the vehicle. Plaintiff gave evidence that he sold the lorry to deiendant about June 20 last. Defendant said he was arranging to get a grant l'rom the Repatriation Department, and would, pay in a fortnight. Witness delivered the lorry to delendant’s yard. Defendant still had the lorry, and had paid nothing on it. The price arranged was £4B. Defendant was quite satisfied with tide lorry. Shortly alter the lorry was sold, he noticed an p,dvertisemeiit m a Palmerston fJaper offering a tony for sale, an ii on making inquiry had reason to believe that the lorry was the one he had sold to deiendant.

To Mr Grant: The lorry was not sold on approval.

His Worship: Did deiendant ever offer to return the lorry? \ Witness: No. Witness said he offered to take the lorry back some time after defendant had tak£n it, provided defendant paid. £lO for the use of d. This was declined.

James Jamieson, plaintiffs brother, said he was present when the lorry .was handed over to defendant. King was satisfied with the lorry, and saiu he would pay in two weeks, wheißdns grant came to hand from the Repatriation Department,

Mr Grant, for defendant, stated that the lorry was sold on approval, anu was found not to be suitable for .the wprk which defendant intended n for.

Jack King, the defendant, said me lorry was bought on approval, ne found that the lorry was a lour-horse one, and not for two horses, and was quite unsuitable lor witness’s woi;k. He told plaintiff about the lorry, and asked him to take it back. He saiu he would see about it, and offered io take it back if given £lO, which witness ' considered too much. Some time, after, witness again asked plaintiff to take it back, and he again saiu he would see. To Mr Adams: His brother had advertised the lorry for sale. Witness had made an application lor a roan to purchase a lorry. Witness admitted he had a horse froim piaintili to test the lorry, but had never given the lorry a fair trial. His Worship remarked that to auvertise the lorry lor sale was an act oi ownership, and judgment would therefore be for piaintili ioi me amount, claimed with costs. A BUILDER’S CLAIM.. John Whitaker, builder, Levin (.Mr Blenkhorn), proceeded against George Bauckham Brown, carrier, Levin (Mr Adams), claiming £3l 12/$ • for wm.. done and material supplied to deiendant in carrying out alterations anu repairs to a dwelling in Duiham Street. Deiendant paid £2l 5/ into court m settlement oi the claim. Piaintili gave evidence as to how the account was made up, and particulars of work done hy his workmen. He produced the men’s tiiue-hook. Under cross-examination he said the men entered their own time. Witness uot work dn the job. Defendant said the work was not carried out according to his instructions, and he thought it ridiculous that it should cost £2l 6/ for labour to place £l2 worth of material in position in his house. Josiah Harvey, building contractor, gave evidence that he considered that the charge for labour was excessive. He considered £25 would have been a fair charge for the whole job. William Peters, builder, corroborated the evidence of the previous witness as to the claim for labour being too much. „riis Worship said the charge for labour seenfed heavy, aud he would split the difference and give judgment for the £2l 5/ paid into court, with an additional £5, and costs £1 7/. A COMPLICATED CASE. A case Tvas heard in which Frans Johanson, fanner, of Waikanae, claimed £2O 13/2 from Richard A. Rolston, farmer, Levin, the claim being for half share of milk cheques clue plaintiff under a milking agreement amounting to £8 13/2, and 2-4 days’ wages at TO./ per (Jay., £l2. vDefeodaat. coimtar-cl in

use of defendant’s land for 10 weeks at £4 10/ per acre, £7O 4/4; board and lodging lor live weeks. £5; rent of house lor two weeks at 30/ per• week, £3; damage to house, £1; less milk cheques received from Levin Dairy Co., £l7 6/3, and less wages for work done as claimed, £l2; leaving a balance of £49 18/1. Mr Atmore appeared ior piaintili, and Mr Blenkhorn for defendant. After hearing a portion of plaintiffs evidence) his Worship struck out the counter claim, and gave judgment lor