B.M. COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXXXII, Issue 191, 14 August 1900, Page 2

B.M. COURT.

Monday, August lSib.—BWo»Ur.|W L. Stanford, B.IL 1 J OPQMEKT FOB PLAIITWt. j M, Juuei v. W. Siuiptoa, cUim, 6l | 63, costs 6>. Mr. Weston for ptaintiC - Tauikaki News 00. v. J. J. Gilberts claim, £4 Is 3d, oasts XI ISi. Mr, Hughes for plaintiff. P. Va Chas. Francis; claim, 11« 10 J, costs ft,A. Standiah v. W. K. Oarriogtoii j' claim, £l4 18i sc; costs, £llos W. DXFMDBD OASES. J. G. Kuyvett v. Thcg. Mills. Thii was a claim of £lO far dtmigcs tpd expense*, consequent on the defendant unlawfully impounding the plaintift'c cattle. Mr. Quiliiam appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. K«rr fjr defendant. It appeared that plaintiff sttd dtf#a« : dant vera adjoining owners, and aooord« , ing to plaintiff's statement the defend* ant's half of the boundary fenoe was la bad repair. Six heifers of the plaintiff were impounded by tbe defendant*and the fees and claim for damage paid under protest. / W. fi. Urisooe, another adjoining ' owner, said the detodlfttfiMtft tha fence was in b%d order, and that defend* ant would no* do what was right la relation to fencing un il be ma com* p llod. Mr. Kerr subnrit f ed that tbe phi* Uffmurt be nouiuit«d|

taken the remedy provided for by the Act. kL After some discussion His Worship BttttMd'to allow a' nonsuit. SUpilther evidence was called, and eventually judgment was given for the plaintiff-for £ll4s (the amount paid to the ppundkeeper), with costs, £i Is. 61 Bofllton v. Thoe. Mills. This was a chum for XI 13s for goods supplied. Mr. Richmond appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Kerr for the defendant.

The claim was admitted, the only question being aa to the defendant's counterclaim of j£2-Bs. The defendant, in examination by Mr. Kerr, stated that he supplied plaintiff with butter, the price of which wasio be 8d per lb, but plaintifl only gavehim credit for 5d per lb; 8d was She maijcet price. TojMr. Richmond: There was no arrangement that the butter should be taken at what it was worth. Nellie Mills stated that she took the • first lot of butter to defendant and received' 7d per lb. She took the money, defendant stating that she was to Bee what her father Baid about the price. •

Thomas Brash, manager of the Gooperative Society, said defendant had been bringing butter to. the Society this year and had received 8d for it. It was not tip-top butter, but good ordinary butter. Eightpencewasafair price. The plaintiff, examined by Mr. Richmond, stated that his custom was to pay for butter according to price. That supplied by the defendant was only»a second class quality. Gould not say what he told Mills' butter for. At

latter part of the time he thought some of the batter was thrown Into the pig tab. He also arranged to buy 20 sicks of oaten chaff at Is a sack. To Mr. .Richmond: He never arranged a grice for the batter; 5d was as much as it was worth. Mrs, Boston gave similar evidence. Counsel on both sideß briefly addressed the Court. His Worship said it was evident that the parties came to no agreement as to the price to be paid for the butter, and" therefore the market value must be taken—Bd adcording to Mr. Brash's evidence. As to the chaff, Is 6d par sad: was the recognised value: Judgment for plaintiff for j£ll3s without costs, and for the defendant on the counter-claim, £% 8s with costs, 2s.