A GRAZING CLAIM.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 104, 18 September 1912, Page 2

A GRAZING CLAIM.

A claim for agistment occupied the attention of tile Magistrate's Court yesterday morning, when 11. B. Lepper, of Lepperton, sued J. C. Montefiorc, metal contractor, for£l2 12s. 'The defendant paid £4 14s 6d into court, and disputed the balance. Mr G. Grey appeared for the plaintiff, while Mr C. H. Weston defended. Tlie plaintiff deposed to the defen-: dant having approached him with a re- ■ quest that lie should lease 'his hay pad-' dock to him. Defendant guaranteed to put in 16 horses, and to take the paddock for two months, the charge to be Is 6d per head per week. The terms were, )3ie said, accepted by Montifiore, on whom also devolved the completion of the fenicing of the paddock, plaintiff, however, supplying the material. The defendant, it was alleged, neglected to carry out this part of the agreement. Plaintiff charged him with the grazing of 24 horses, which number defendant disputed, holding that it was in excess of the num- : ber actually paddocked. After the account had been sometime overdue lie i (Lepper) asked Montifiore to pay the I -amount. ' The latter did not then dispute its correctness, promising to settle up inside of two weeks. The whole agreement was a verbal one. Cross-examined by Mr Weston, the plaintiff said that he leased 20 acres, including the liay paddock of 8 acres, from the natives for the sum of £5 Se per annum, and that by the agreement entered into Montefiore was to pay at the rate of £65 per annum for this area. lie added that lie did not see that that had anything to do with the case. Evidence was given by the wife of the plaintiff to the effect that her husband's terms were Is Cd per head per week for a minimum of 10 horses. The defendant, on the other hand, said that i ae far as practical use was concerned, the paddock was of no great value. He had agreed to take the paddock during the Christmas Holidays at Is Cd per head and •to fix up the fences. He did not guarantee to pay for 16 horses. As for keeping 16 horses for two months, the place would not even carry half that number. There was no understanding that lie was to take the paddock for two months, it ' being eaten bare before that time. His 1 real object in leasing the paddock was to use it as an hospital for bis horses. His horses would have remained there for a longer period, had there been sufficient feed. Plaintiff did not approach him for payment of the account until nearly a year after the horses were taken out of the paddock, -judgment was given for the plaintiff for £ll 2s and costs.