RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, TEMUKA.

Temuka Leader, Volume I, Issue 104, 14 December 1878, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, TEMUKA.

WeDNESDAY, Dec. 11

[Before A. LeG. Campbell, Esq., R.M.] There were no police cases for hearing to-day. The following civil cases were disposed of : , S. Currie v. BurVf—Claim IBs. Henry and Findlay T. R. Wood, jiin.— Claim LlO 14s Bd. / Judgment by default was recorded in ceah of these cases. Ackroyd and Whitehead v. Cope ‘(a native) —Claim Ll 3 14s lid. Mr John-

ston appeared for plaintiffs. Judgm-nt by default with costs and solicitor’s fee. Hooper v. Bryant—Claim L 39 Bs. Mr Johnston appeared for plaintiff,, and Mr Hatnersley for defendant. The claim was for wages for seventeen weeks from Nov. 15, 1874, to the 15th March, 1875, at L 3 per week, deducting Lll 12s cash received at various times. The parties to the suit and W. Massey were examined. The evidence showed that in March, 1875, plaintiff sued for and obtained judgment against defendant for the sum of L2o—the maximum recoverable in a Resident Magistrate’s Court at that time —for wages due to the preceding November. That amount and the amount now sued for were both due when the first case was heard. The present claim was resisted on the ground that a judgment of the kind recorded bars any further claim for moneys due at the time. Mr Johnston tried hard to break down this defence, but fruitlessly. The plaintiff was therefore non-suited.

McSheeby Gentleman v. Neale—Claim L 3 18s, balance due on riding saddle and bridle sold. Mr Johnston for plaintiff. Plaintiff stated that defendant’s grandson came to him and asked for a saddle and bridle, saying that the defendant had sent him for them. This was in March, 1876. In June Neale called and paid L2 on account of the saddle and bridle, saying his grandson had given him the money for the purpose. Defendant said bis grandson was not living with him at the time. He had not sent him for the saddle and would not pay for it. The boy gave him L2 to give to plaintiff, and he gave it to him, telling him at the time that it was from his grandson. He did not promise to pay the rest himself, but said that he would try to make his grandson do so. The lad said he would pay the rest sometime. He believed he was now at Waimate. He is about 18 years of age now. Plaintiff had asked him to pay for the saddle before the L2 was given on account, but he (witness) had disclaimed the liability. His Worship decided to adjourn the case that the grandson might be communicated with.

B. Thompson v. M. Breean—Claim L 8 7s 7d. Judgment summons. Defendant did not appear. Mr Thompson, sworn, stated that the account was run up by the defendant and four or five other men. Defendant drew money from his mates to pay this account, but instead of doing so ho pocketed it. He would ask for the utmost rigour of the law to be applied. An order was issued for defendant to pay the amount within one day of service of order, in default one month’s imprisonment.

A. Wilson and Sons v. E. Clements Claim L2 6s. Judgment summons. Ordered, to pay forthwith or in default to be imprisoned for fourteen days. Gaffney v. Wright—Claim LG, for paddocking sheep. Mr Toswill appeared for defendant, and objected to the case being gone on with on the ground that the bid -of particulars on which the action was brought was informal, inasmuch as it did not show how many sheep were paddocked, nor that the sum charged had been previously agreed upon. The case was adjourned to allow of the ’parties arranging the matter between them, which they did.

M. Barret v D. Connell—Claim L 3 10s, for service of horse. Mr Hamersley appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Toswill for defendant.The evidence adduced showed that defendant’s brother agreed with plaintiffs groom to have a guarantee given, the ■charge to be L 5. Defendant himself objected to this agreement, and asked Mr Barret to alter the arrangement to one of service only. Mr Barret replied that he must see his groom about it. Nothing more was said about the matter and defendant seemed to have gained the idea that as his offer was not definitely accepted he was not at all liable. As, however, his mare was served after that conversation In’s Worship gave judgment for amount claimed and costs.

. E. J. Pardew t. W. Fitzgerald—Claim L 6 3s 2d, for balance due on an account for work done and other matters. Mr Hamers]ey for plaintiff, and Mr Johnston for defendant The claim was made up of three items, a balance of an account ■for threshing, value of three hags of coal used while cutting chaff for defendant, and L 3 for two weeks board of the driver and feeder of the thrashing machine. Part of the claim appeared to be opposed "by defendant through a dim idea that he had overpaid plaintiff for the thrashing, he believing that an error made in counting the bags on the first day had not been rectified, though he could not prove this; and another part, the L 3 for board, through ignorance of the usual custom, which is that the farmer either feeds the driver and feeder of the machine or gives them a money equivalent. An agreement was put in in evidence, which stated that the usual customs were to be observed. Mr Andrew Gibson, a former, •affirmed the prevalence of the custom referred to. Judgment was given for amount •claimed and costs, L 3 7s.

Fitzgerald v. Pardew—Claim 14 9?. The parties were represented by the same solicitors. Part of this claim, horse-feed lor 22 days, L2, was made by Fitzgerald in ignorance of another custom of the threshing season, that, the water-cart horse must be led by the farmer engaging the machine. Mr Andrew Gibson affirmed this custom to obtain. Defendant admitted that his horse was fed for three days before thrashing commenced ; 2s a day would he a sufficient charge. Another item was a set of harness, SOs. Plaintiff said defendant borrowed a horse and set of harness, and the horse broke away and smashed it all to pieces. He never looked after it as he thought it worthless, and he never saw it again. Defendant said the harness was not much damaged, only two straps being broken. It was repaired by riyetting, and used the same day on plaintiff’.s horse; 6s would cover the damage. A third item, 19s, for labour done, was admitted. His Worship gave judgment for LI 15s, and costs, allowing 10s for the damage done to the harness, and 6s for three days keep of horse. The bailiff applied for instructions how to proceed in a certain rase. A judgment summons had been issued against Walter Fuller, but by an error it was made out in the name of E. Fuller. Fuller paid the original debt, but refused to pay the costs of the case on the ground that the summons was not made out in bis name. His Worship instructed the bailiff tu collect the costs, an error made in inserting the name of a person in a summons not vitiating the document. The Court adjourned until that day ■m or, l-h