RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Before H. Kenrick, Esq., R.M. Tuesday, Nov. 25, 1884.

Te Aroha News, Volume II, Issue 79, 6 December 1884, Page 7

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Before H. Kenrick, Esq., R.M. Tuesday, Nov. 25, 1884.

J. B Smith v. Wood, Shand, &,Co.. adjourned from 11th inst. Claim £100. Mr J. A. Miller, solicitor, fpr plaintiff, Mr G. N. Brassey for defendants. Tim plaint in this case as- cited by plaintiffs solicitor, is to the effect that '• plaintiff sues the defendants ,for that on or about the month of September. IS 3, it was a-greed -between the plumtiff and defendants that the plain fiff should buy of the defendants a potatoe cutter and planter combined at the pried of £12, and that the defendants "should s 11 mi-1 deliver the. same to" the plaintiff on or before October 4th, 1883, and plaintiff paid defendant ihe sum of £12 ; whilst defendants have failed to carry out their contract, and the machine was never delivered, in consequence of which plaintiff c'aims damages to the extent of £100 for loss sustained, particular's of which are as follows : Cash paid fur potatoe cutter ami planter, insurance and exchange £12 4s tid ; difference in* cost of cutting and planting potatoes by hand instead of by macHineJ 13i acres at £2 per acre, £27 ; loss of 3^ tms potatoes from wet and heat during delay in delivery of inachine at* £7 10s per .ton, £26 .">s ; loss of 28 cwt of boneflour, £14 ; expi nses and loss of time going- to Auckland to enquire if machine had gone astray, and also loss of time sending nu i n and horses to landing place on Waihou rivei to meet steamer to get machine, £30 ; total, £109 ( Js 6d. Plaintiff claims £100 damages. Tnis case occupied the Court a good part of the day, and the evidence is far too voluuiinovts for publication. It appeared that the machine was delivered on rail at Christchurch railway station on October 4th by Booth, MacDonald, and (Jo., implement manufacturers, who received the order for same from Wood, Shand, and Co., and that the machine went as far as Lytteiton and no further, being brought back by Booth, MacDonald, and Co. to Christchurch towards the end of the year. It was clearly proved the defendants showed great negligence in not ascertaining th'at'the machine had really been shipped to Auckland as agreed on. Defendants also stated that a mistake occurred in the transmission of a telegi'am, which assisted in complicating matters, defendants asking " Shall we ship" another machine, which was transmitted " Shall re ship," etc. 'Plaintiff being in daily vixpectation of receiving the machine, kvpr putting off the planting of his crop, and lost the best p.wt of tlu> season . The defence wns to the effect that the defendants had to the best of t'teir ability on le.ivomed to c.irry out their contract ; the machine had Seen sent off in good time, and they were unaware till niaintifl's later ti-legiams were received that it had not gone forward, also that the mistake in the telegraph office already referred to caused -considerable unnecessary delay. The witnessed examine 1 for plaintiff were Messrs S. Seddon, -J: Parr, Michael McShefferv,' and Jus. La very. The evidence of Win. Wood (Wood, Shand, and Co.), and Thos. Booth (Booth, Macrionald, and Co.) being forwarded from Christchurch. Judgment was given for £51 5s in addition to £12 9s Gd paid into Court, and with costs amounting to £13 19s. Plaintiff stated that he only got about one ton of potatoes to the acre in consequence of being planted so very late ; generally got about six tons an acre, and stated tn at £100 would nothing like, recoup him for the loss lie had sustained by waiting about for machine Montague and Orr v. Cornea and Dunlop, adjourned from 11th inst. Claim £)() 17s for work done. Judgment for amount, and costs £G J 2s 6d. C. S* Pyne v. Hy. T. Rowe, claim for £16 14s 9d debt for goxls. Judgment for amount claimed 'and costs. Enid Mokena an- 1 others v. M. W. D. O'Keefe. Judgment summons, amount £• ; Mr Miller for plaintiffs. JM. W. D. O'Keefe (sworn) in reply io Mr Miller, stated he was defendant iin this action. Admitted judgment being given against him for amount j claimed. Had not paid it, and cculd not afford to ; had no money. Could afford to get married about a month ago. Was in work and got 9s a day. Was working lately and got paid at tiie rate of 9s a day for that work. 9s a day was not sufficient to keep his house. Could just manage to exist on 9s a day, only himself and wife to keep. Could sport a gold watch and chain. Got a little furniture lately, but it was Mrs O'Keefe who paid for it with her own money. Gave the house he - removed from Lipsey's Block, Te Aroha, to the lady he afterwards married in part satis--faction for some money he owed her, and which he had borrowed from her before they were married* Might have said to" some person he would rather " take it out" than ever pay the amount. . Did not see really how he could afford to pay it at all. Omened to pay £4 7s by- instalments of JOs a week, in 'default 1* days' imprisonment.

The Pitilco County Council have, sent a protest to tin 1 , railway nuthorities against the new i ail way tiniii- table. ' ' '. /