S.M. COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXIV, Issue XXIV, 10 June 1902, Page 2

S.M. COURT.

Monday, June 9di. -Before Mr H. 1 W. Brabant, S.M. JUDGMHNT FOR PLAINTIFF. Wm. t.'o tier v. Mary Jane Ro«s, 1 chim XI 14< 6i, costs ss, Mr Qml--1 li im fir plaintiff; Hugh MeClHlund v. Geo. Bur, claim X 5 13 j , cos's XI 3s 6d, Mr Ounie for plaintiff; G. W. Btrford v. H. O'Donncll, claim £1 9< 6', c >sts ss, Mr W ston for plaintiff; Augu-te Peters v J. J. Hirkar, c'aim 10s, for balance ot r(n% also for pissession of cottage An order was mad ' 1 for payment of 10s rent, and cists XI 17a, and warrant tu i.-bua for possession on or after 23rd inst. ; Mr Hughes fur plaintiff DEEENDED CASE. W. G. Key vet 1 : v. John Polletb. This was a c'aim for XI for mowing oa's. Mr Quilliam for plaintiff and Mr We tbu for defendant. Plaintiff g*v<s evidence f o the effect that hb agreed with defendant to mow the oats f r XI on the un Icis'andiDg that the work was not to be d no for a few days. In cross examination, plaintiff siid defendant had r fu ed topiy because he iind engig d anoih r man to Ho the woik.

For the defence, it was contended that the woik was not dor.e when con tr.ct dfor, und thit, before 'ho oi's nere mown the crop lad l ten :uld i.h i. stood aid other ananj me t-i had bdin undo for the wi rk; -!so that 'defendant hud not br-en l.enefi ed by the work don-. Def>mlunt hot e out this statement. He was not at home wh. u the i a's wero cut or w.m'd have s'opped plaintiff from cuttng In cioss eximin itiun, he admito d that it paid him bett-r to s-.1l tlio oits s they s:ood tlmi h .va th m cut. I

W. said he bought the oats as thoy s'oo), but defendant was to pay for the machii.e cutting the crop. Strtet was to do the work, mid witness arranged !o have men ready to biud the oits ; but plaintiff cut them wh<n no one was there and the oats lay ou the ground. He considtred the co8 f of cutting should not be more than 12

The S.M. Saul there teemed io be n umunders anding b.twcea the piriijs as to whun the wo k should bedoce, and defendant might have given plaintill' notice when he sold the <a s. Judgment would be for plaintiff for amount claimed wr h costs 7s.