RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. TEMUKA.

Temuka Leader, Volume 2, Issue 112, 11 January 1879, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. TEMUKA.

Wednesday, Jan*. 8. [Before A. LeG. Campbell, Esq., R.M.J POLIC'D CASES. 0. Dyson was charged with having allowed seven head of cattle to wander on the railway on two different occasions. Fined 17s for first offence, second charge dismissed. G. IT. Thompson, J. Yelvin. B. Thompson, and P. Thoreau were charged with breach of the same law. Defendants were each fined 3s a head for the trespassing cattle. CIVIL CASES. Judgment by default, with costs, was recorded in the following six eases : W. Stonyer v. W. Davie —Claim L/ 19s Id. Lyon and Harrop v. Jackson Griffin, claim L 4 15s 9d. Ackroyd and Whitehead v. llape and Co. (natives), claim L2O ISs 6d. Same v. ITupe, claim LI la 7d. W. John- j ston v. Cain, claim LG 11s. _ i Henry and Findlay v. McCann —Claim LI 18 s, costs of a previous suit for debt for j which judgment had been given. _ j Speed & Duggan v. O. P. M'Calluui Claim. i L6l 12s 3d, for work done and broach of j contnct. _ . . § Defendant paid Ll 5 10a into Court as fqjr j payment for the work done. _* I This case occupied the Court a considerable 1 timejfcliieily through the confused notions of •* the plaintiffs as to the legal aspect of their case. ' Mr Jameson appeared tor plaintiffs and air . Hamorslev for defendant. The plaintiffs’ evidence showed that on seeinc an advertisement >« f he * Timar

Herald ’ inviting tenders for ploughing and harrowing on the Arowheimu estate they t endered for the harrowing of about fjOO acres at Is “ a stroke ” per acre. Their offer was accepted verbally. The ground was not particularly pointed out to them, but Mr iff Call am indicated that it was on the ‘dower block.” On tbeir going to work they were directed to go to the upper block, near Hilton. Hero they hai’rowed two lots, amounting to 178 acres. On going to a third lot of 20 acres, which had been named to them they found the defendant’s teams at work in it. They could not see any more land to work at, and Mr M'Callum never coming near them they knocked oil, considering that defendant had broken tho contract. They then made their claim for the work done, and for damages for the breach of contract. Mr M'Callum stated that he agreed to give plaintiffs a Is a stroke per acre for the harrowing. „ The land was all in the upper block and most of it required three strokes, two of which were to be given with tine and one with tripod harrows. Ho did not go up with them to give them directions, but communicated with them through another person. Duggan knew the land very well, as lie had owned land in the neighbourhood. There was plenty of land for them to work on. There was at least the quantity mentioned in the agreement —500 to 700 acres. J. Brosnahan, who was at the time in charge of the work on the upper block, stated that he told plaintiffs where to go to work next on their finishing any lot. When they had finished two lots he directed them to harrow a piece of 26 acres about two miles from the last. They objected that it would not pay them. They refused to go and knocked off work altogether. Judgment was given for amount paid into Court, without costs. E. Lee v. Laird —Claim L 4 7s 2d, balance duo on an account for goods supplied after a payment had been made on account. Defendant disputed the claim on the ground that the goods were obtained by a party of three and ho had paid his share. Plaintiff stated that he asked one of the party to be responsible, and defendant gave him his name. He would not have supplied them but on this condition. Defendant denied having given his name and denied that anything was said about one being responsible. Judgment for amount claimed and costs. McS. Gentleman v. W. Neale —Claim L 3 18s. Mr Johnston appeared for plaintiff. This was adjourned from last Court day to allow defendant to communicate with his grandson Avho had obtained the goods, the value of which plaintiff sued for. As defendant did not appear judgment was entered against him for the amount and costs 12s. Warne v. Hodgson —Claim L2 17s, for four weeks rent. The dispute was as to whether notice of leaving had been given by flic tenant. Defendant admitted that he was liable for two weeks rent. The Bench drew the line between the two, and gave judgment for L2 2s, and costs 12s. Tho Court then adjourned.