RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. TEMUKA.

Temuka Leader, Issue 920, 21 February 1882, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. TEMUKA.

Tbmtjka— Monday, February 20, 1882. [Before J. Beswick Esq., R.M.] CATTLE TRESPASS. Daniel Mcllraith was charged with allowing horses belonging to him to wander on the railway at W- inchester and was fined £l. Q- Taylor was charged with allowing two cows, his property, to wander on the railway at Winchester. Frank Exton : I am platelayer on the railway. Two calves, belonging to Mr Taylor were trespassing in the station yard. I took them to the pound. The line is well fc need on both sides. To defendant : The hoy did nat come to tell me the cows broke out of the sale yard. I did not see the boy for some time after. We repaired the fence that morning. I only repaired one rail The fence was in good order. G. Taylor said the cattle were in the yard to be sold and they broke out. Exton got ahold of them and impounded them. He had since sold them. His Worship said that in consideration of what the defendant had stated he won 11 deal leniently with him and fine him 5s and costs. Henry Smith was charged with having on the 2nd of February allowed one cow belonging to him to wander on the railway. The defendant admitted the charge, but said the cow had got into a wire fence and was released by a neighbor and allowed to wander about, Daniel Mclllwraith : On the day men. tioned I saw the cow caught in the fence. I r- leasee her and she wandered about. His *Vors!iip said he wou'd inflict th*' nominal fine of 5s as it appeared to be the result of an- accident. He would, howpver, warn people that he would be severe in such cases, as it endangered the iives of passengers. DESTITUTE PERSON'S ACT. William. Jacob J,:ick was brought up charged with having neglected to contribute to the support of his mother. Mr Hamersley appeared for the complainant, and Mr Perry for the defendant. Matilda Jack : I, am a widow. Six years ago tuy husband died. The defendant is my eldest son. My husband left property, and my sen took possession of it. T had to leave, and got six cows, a house and was to get six acres of laod. I did not get the land. I could not milk the cows and had to keep my daughter at liomc as I must have some one to look after me. He offered me 10a per week if

1 would give back the cows, but 10s per week would not keep me. He has 300 acres of land well stocked, and agricultural implements. He is married and has oue child.

To Mr Perry : I have four children, One is away in New South Wales, one girl is at home with me, and the other is at service. I have besn about 18 months in my present house. The neighbors have helped me. The cows are grazing on my sons section. When I left my son the. house I now occupy was in occupation of another, and my son paid rent for me in another house until my own house became vacant. My son keeps cows too. I had a quarrel with his wife, she said she w< uld not have me in his house. William Jacob Jack : I am a son of last witness. My mother resided for four years with me, ami left because she did not agree with my wife. I rented a cottage for her and gave her six cows which I was to graze, and if she had nina or ten cows I would graze them for her. I have hue • grazing the cattle since. I paid rent for her for 21 weeks until then she went into a house on my land I offered her 10s a week if she gave back the cows. The eldest of my sisters is 22. and the youngest 17 years. 1 find it difficult enough fo make both ends met. When my mother left she took away nearly everything that was in house.

To Mr Hamersley : My mother is pretty active but is not a milker of cows. I got £3 a year for the house. It is worth 6s per week. My father was not able to work before he died. The property that was left after my father's death was bought with money I earned, for me and in my named. I did not promise to give my mother 6 acres of .'and, but there is a garden near the house which she might use. I hare 309 aces of land, 80 acres of wheat, and 7 acres of oats. To the Court: I should reckon that such cows as I have given my mother would yield 51bs of butter each per week and rear a oaif besides. I could not give my mother 10s per week and the cottage. She has sold two springing cows. His Worship said that it appeared to him that the complainant could not be said to be destitute, aad that the son had used efforts to provide for her. It was well known that persons having and often had enough to do. He would suggest, however, that the pon should do as much as he could for his mother. The case was dismissed. CIVIL CASSS, S. Norton v. D. Steel—Claim £4 lis 6d. Judgment summons- Ordeved to pay at the rate of £1 per month or in default one month's imprisonment. Sarah Louis v. J. Barratt —Claim £4 12s lid. Judgment summons. Ordered to pay 15s per week or go to gaol for a fortnight. M. Quinn v. J. Roddick—Claim £65. Mr Perry appealed for the plaintiff and Mr ffamersley for the defendant, Michael Quinn : I have land on lease from Mr Rhodes, when I obtained the lease there was about 23 acres, of oats and wheat on the land. I cut, tied and stooked the crons. About 6.30 a.m. on the 3rd of this month I went to the paddock and found the defendant and 3 men, and 2 drays, carting the wheat away. I told them to desist and they did so for about a quarter of an hour. Two more dravs and two more men came to take the wheat av ay. They commenced to fork the corn into the cart which I prevented. Sometime after Mrs Roc.dick came and lent them help, and I got exhausted and gave it up. They carted the corn to a section belonging to Mr Job Brown. The value of the wheat wa9 £6O. I claim £5 for damages. To Mr Hamersley: I got the lease from the Ist of September ; I do not know who put Hie crop in of my own knowledge ; It might be three months before I got the lease of the paddock that I saw it; so far as I know James Marshall was in possession of it before me ; I ploughed some of the paddock ; I knew there was a crop on the land when I took the lease ; the crop was a consideration when I took the lease; I would not have given more than 15s per acre for it but for the crop ; I pay £1 per acre for it ; James Marshall came to me to sell his interest intne land ; I gave him £lO 10s on deposit; he has paid back to me the £lO 10s ; I did not cut the crop before it was ripe, and had no idea that anyone would take it away. I did not like to give Roddick into custody for fear he might sue me for damages, and I thought it better to try the matter by a civil action ; I hs.ve about £3O worth of the crop; Roddick has twice as much as I have of it. To the Court: I was in Miles, Archer and Co.'s in Timaru, anci met the defendant; he said you have got that paddock, what will you take on your bargaid ; I said If you give me £SO you can have it; he said he would give me £5. He never claimed the crop. To Mr Hamersley : I went to Marshall's place to value Roddick's interest m the paddock ; I valued Roddick's interest at 9s per acre for putting in the crop ; his calculation and mine did not agree ; Marshall told me if I bought the pla?e and paid himself, he would pay Roddick. To Mr Perry : My arrangements with Marshall fell through, owing to his lease being null and void j I told Marshall the lease was no good, and demanded b'ck my deposi". George Bolton : I served Mr Roddick with a notice to give up the crop —he tore it, swore and said he would not give up the e v op. Michael Scannel, thrashing machine proprietor : [ thrashed the grain for Mr Roddick on the 24th February; there were 404 bushels of wheat in it. Francis John Meade: I am storeman at Mr Job, Brown; I received 83 bags from Mr Roddick ; I delivered 80 bags of it to Murray Bros., of Winchester. This concluded the plaintiff's case. Mr Hamersley said he had various defences to make. One was that the Court had no

jurisdiction, and another that it was the landlord and not the tenants who could bring the action against an outgoing tenant who took away a crop.

His Worship took a note of the points raised by Mr Hamersley and decided to hear further evidence.

James Marshall, baker, living in Temuka : I leased the paddock in dispute from Mr Rhodes under a written lease ; had possession of it for 7i years, and paid rent for it; I tendered payment before Quinn took possession, but it was refused ; a crop was put in it by Roddick ; he was to do all the labor> and I was to find half the seed ; we were to halve the crop ; I never was ejected from the land, and I never gave up possession of it; after the crop was in I agreed to sell it to Mr Quinn, and we went in to see Miles, Archer and Co. We were told it was all right, but Mr Quinn was called back into Miles Archer and Co.'s office. Next time I saw Quinn lie told me he 'had the place ; I told him Roddick should be paid for his labor. To Mr Perry : I became bankrupt after I took the lease ; the lease was never taken from me ; I paid rent for four years after I was bankrupt; Mr Foster came down, took possession, and gave me back the keys ; I do not know that I was a weekly tenant. [A document was here handed in by Mr Perry to show that witness was a weekly tenant.] Examination continued : I hare done nothing to the property since I got a notice to quit. To Mr Hamersley . The crop was well up before I got notice to quit on the 17th Sept, last. J. Roddick : I am a farmer ; I put in the crop and carted it away. Marshall wanted me to buy the lease, and I said I would make terms with him; I would do ail the labor, and find half the seed ; he was to find the land and the other half of the crop. I looked after the place on behalf of Marshall and myself. After having paid for carting, threshing etc., all the crop I took away realised £3O ; no one interfered with me when putting the seed in. To Mr Perry : I offered Mr Quinn £6 or £lO on his bargain when he told me ho had got the land ; I have gone into the paddock to repair fenoes, but never told Quinn I had a right to the orop, as I was under the impression that Marshall had a lease of the land. I was never aware that Marshall was only a weekly tenant until to-day. I started to cart away the crop between three and four o'clock in the morning because I wanted to have all away during the day ; I did not cut the crop as it was not ripe. I bad made arrangements to have it nxxt. I saw it bsing cut by Quinn, but did not speak to him about it. W. Walcot : I am an accountant in Messr s Perry and Perry's office. I gave Marshall the receipt produced. The accounts were always rendered every six months. Mr Hamersley said that he would again press the question that the action should have been brought by the landlord and not the tenant, The crop came under the heading of a way-going crop, and the landlord alone was entitled to sue the outgoing tenant fo r taking it away. He quoted several cases in support of his argumant. He spoke for nearly an hour urging that the Court kad n-* jurisdiction, and that the landlord ard not the tenant was entitled to bring the action. Mr Perry pointed out that Marshall's lease ceased when he became bankrupt. He next beeame a weekly tenant whose tenancy ceased when he got the notice to quit. Roddick was no more than Marshall's servant in the matter, and instead of disputing his right to it with Mr Quinn comes in the middle of the night to take it away. He quoted from the County Court Practice to show that the Court had jurisdiction. He alse cited case of Davis v. Connor to show that it was not the landlord that ought to have brought the action as stated by Mr Hamersley. His Worship reserved his decisiou till next Court day. J H. Dickinson y. E. Lee—Claim £35 3s Bd. Mr White appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Hamersley for the defence. J. H. Dickinson : I received from Mr Lee 4279 bushels of grain for gristing. I was to be paid for every 1000 bushels when it was done. I delivered 1700 bushels, and have the balance to give him whsn I am paid. To Mr Hamersley : My agreement was to deliver the flour to Mr Lee, but not befo;e I was paid for it; I delivered 21 bags at his request; according to my miller's accounts the whole has been delivered to Lee ; my miller has left me. To Mr White: Part of my bargain was that it should all be left to Mr Christmas, the miller ; tb.3 whole of the wheat has been gristed, and would have been delivered if I had been paid for it. Mr Hamersley urged that the case must be nonsuited, on the ground that the plaintiff knew nothing except what he learned from his books. His Worship, however, decided to hear further evidence. William Christmas : I was miller for Mr Dickinson. I ground the whole of Mr Lee's wheat; some of it was delivered to other people ; there was about 90 sacks more to go to Lee when I left. The flour I saw in Mr Les's store was damaged, and was no good ; there were 1971bs of flour in the sacks, and they wera delivered to Mr Lee as 2001bs sacks. To Mr White : I had the control uf the mill ; I did the work and Lee would neyer have sent his wheat there only for me ; there were about eight of Lees sacks in the mill I when I left ; there were 84 sacks of Mr Dickinson's there. I gristed the wheat to the best advantage ; he ought to get 42 lbs flour, lllbs bran, 51bs sharps, and 21bs waste. To the Court: I mixed some of Mr Lee's wheat with some of Mr Dickinson's good wheat.. Jordson, baker for Mr Lee : The flour after Christmas left was no good and I. took ' it back ; I tried two bags but had to give it to | the pig». ' I

E. Lee : I met Mr Dickinson and he asked I me if I would take flour in his own bags ; I said I would if it was good ; lie sent me 18 sacks of flour which was not good and I told Mrs Dickinson I could not use it. I told Mr Ashwell to tell Mr Dickinson to meet m« and if Mr Christmas had made a mistake I would be willing to do what Mr Christmas would say was right. His Worship gave judgment for the plaintiff for the amount claimed and costs, but ordered the money to be kept in the Court till the plaintiff returned 17 good sacks of good flour instead of the 17 sacks refused by defendant, and 31bs per srcck for every one that was 3lbs short of 2001bs. T. Swinton v. Clinton, Adjourned for a fortnight,