Magistrate's Court.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 7724, 28 January 1905, Page 2

Magistrate's Court.

KIiIDAY, JANUARY 27th. (liei'ore Mr T. Hutchison, S.M.) —Judgment for Plaintiffs.— Okey and others v. J. C. Davies.— Claim 32s (id, costs 10s. Mr Quiltiam (Govett ami Quilliam) for plaintiff. —Claim for Wages.— AViltsliiro v. Mrs O'Brien.—This was jn claim for wages. Mr Quilliam, ( who appeared for defendant, stated (that Mr O'Brien, the licensee of the hotel, should have been sued intend of Mrs O'Brien. Plaintiff, in | nswer to the Magistrate, said that having been engaged by Mrs O'Urien she expected to be paid by her. Mr ( Quilliam applied for an adjournment, stating that though the amount involved was small, the | principle at stake jagreed to join Mr—ffltrien in the suit without service, and plaint if! consenting to an adjournment, the case was deferred for a week. | —Judgment Summonses.— ! Berry and Co. v. Robert Bresano. —Mr Cray (Wilson and (.3ray) appeared for plaint id', and examined defendant as to his earnings ami expenditure. No order was marie. T. S. Weston v. E. Watt.—Defendant did not appear, and an order was made for payment of debt and costs within a week, in default one week's imprisonment. —Grazing Fees.— C. Carter v. Giesen.—This was a claim of £5 17s under an agreement relative to grazing on a farm on the Yeale Road. Mr Quilliam for plaintiff. Plaint iff, in his evidence, stated that he arranged with defendant to graze on *thc farm at least nine cows at Is per week, from August to November. Defendant was to keep an account of the number of cows from time to time on the land, but although askefi for such account it had not been rendered. Mr Quilliam stated that plaintiff was willing to take £2 14s (less £2 Jls (yd paid into Court) being the amount due to the date when defendant admitted taking his cows a way. Defendant's evidence as taken at Feilding was read by the Magistrate who said the defendant claimed there were no cows grazing on the land for part of the time, and that he only agreed to pay for such as were iput on the land. Judgment was given for plaintiff for 10s ttd and costs. W. Niehol v. O. lloby.—This was a claim for 4s for services in relation to a distress for rent. Mr Hutchen appeared for defendant. Plaintiff, who conducted his own case, stated he distrained for rent due by a man named Cosbrook, and seized two horses, eventually giving same up to the D.0.A., Cosbrook having filed, lie received 4s a day from the Assignee, the amount allowed by the Act. but claimed 8s a day, this being the usual and reasonable charge. Sometimes he received as much as 10s a day. The S.M. : It is an easily , earned Bs, is it not ? Witness : Not when you get your head knocked off sometimes. I often get insulted. The S.M'. : Insulted and assaulted. To Mr Ilutchen : The horses were worked by the tenant in the usual way—off the premises. Had destroyed the distress warrant. The Assignee and Mr Shaw saw witness, and j the former undertaking to pay the rent witness handed over the horses. The S.M. : You practically did nothing for 4s a day but enjoy yourself, and let the tenant do all the work. You were not in possession, but out of possession. Mr Ilutchen claimed a nonsuit. Ife

George Cosbrook, who said plain- ] tiff seized two horses but struck one j off. Plaintiff did not remain in pos- , sossion except, for a while on Tuesday . and again on AVednesday. !] J. S. S. Medley, D.0.A., stated he paid Nichol's fees amounting to til L His, t Oliver Moby, tho defendant', stated j jho saw Nicjvol on the Kit/.roy 'bus \ between 11 and 12 o'clock on the 29t1l August, when the latter said K he had not seiapd the horses as they j wore out at work. < 1 Mr Hutchen proposed to give evi- ( done© corroborating defendant as to . Xichol not restraining on Mondavi, j 'but his Worship protested against , such an unusual course, and Mr Hutchen gave way. j riamtilT applied for an adjourn- ' ment 'to prove that lie made no <11:s- ij tress on Monday. < 1-I.ia Worship saiirt plaintilT could ( only claim -Is a day by custom, but unless there was a contract we- . tween ivlainbifT and defendant, thte t plaintilT must show that liia ser- j vices were worth tine remunera't'ion t uskud for, and this was not borne ! } out by tih'e pvideiicc. iMaamUff must therefore bp nonsuited, with cosits. j —Claim for Trespass 1 . — ; Iloskin v.. Pickering.—This was a ; partly heard ca&'e, the claim toeing ] i'or £ls for damages and trespass. j | Mr Malono appeared for pjUuntilT, ] ar>d Mr Qujlljam for defendant. || I H, V, Pickering said that 'he a- j [greed with plaintiff to relieve him 'j ,of the work of clearing off black- '] berry from the farm on being al- h lowed to cut and sell firewood. Witness Sold twelve cords at £1 per |j cord. PlaintilT knew w'itnoss was < selling the wood. OfYere'd to allow ( plaintiff £5 oil* his mit if paid punctually. I fad been very friendly with ] •plaintiff until a disagreement arose ovor a lien coop. Denied interfering with a fence and letting the pigs ou-t. From lon to thirteen pigs j were at .large when witivess went to take possession!. Had suffered daImago in gai'den from plm'.ntilT's PiffSy |* Kieliaitf Cornish l , a relative of, and living witl), defendant, said he look- ( ed tiftcr the slip rails, and Haw they I were kept up. Hoskin's pigs were frequently on Pickering's property. | To His Worship: As a rule the rails were put up by witness' when | the cart went through, It was not .true the rails were generally left j down. Had not heard Hoskin remonstrate with Pickering about the wood. Sometimes the children put the 1 rails up. Defendant always kept to the cart road to the bush. . Tp Mr Malone : Pigs could get ! under the slip rails. Had never &een them do so. It was a barbed* .wire fence. It wag not pig. proof. Counsel for both sides addressed jihe Court, and the B.M. reserved his decision tilj next, ( . . . L '