RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1167, 19 April 1884, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Geraldine—Thursday, April 15, 1884,

(Before H. C. Baddely, Esq., R.M. and Dr Fish, J.P.) UNREGISTERED DOGS. John Bull, whose case had been adjourned from last Court day for the purpose of his proving the ownership of the dog, now brought forward a witness to prove that the dog did not belong to the defendant but to himself. He also produced the registration ticket. The case was therefore dismissed. William Holmes, of Rhubarb Flat, was charged with being the owner of an unregistered dog. Defendant pleaded guilty and was fined 10s and cost. CIVIL CASES. F. Brown, junr., v. A. M. Clark and H. H’ Loughnan, trustees of late W. K. Macdonald—Claim £9O. Mr White for plaintiff, and Mr Aspinall for defendant. Mr Aspinall would admit that the debt was due, but stated that the money would be paid into Court, awaiting the issue of a cross action that would be heard in Temuka. Mr White objected to such a procedure. Ho had heard nothing of a cross action pending. If the amount were owing his client would want it at once, as he was a contractor, and three or four men were on the point of suing him for money due to them. Mr Aspinall was willing to pay the money, provided the Court would withhold execution till the cross action had been heard, Mr White still objected. The Bench considered that, as only two day would intervene prior to the sitting or the Court at Temuka, the execution should be stayed. Ultimately it was decided lhat judgment should be recorded for plaintiff for the full amount and solicitor’s fee ; execution to be stayed till the cross case had been heard in the R.M. Court, Temuka, on Monday next. James Northam v. Richard SmithClaim £B3 16s lid, for one Howard’s binder, and its appurtenances. Mr White appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Hamersley for defendant. James Northam deposed : I received an order from defendant (produced) for a Howard reaper. I wrote the order and he signed it in my presence. I received the binder on 12tli October, 1883, for the defendant. About that time I gave him notice that I had so received if, and told ,

him several times afterwards. He took it from Winchester on 6th February, 1884. It was laying there at his disposal at any time, and he could have taken it away at any time, and he was aware of that fact. I started the machine for him in a paddock. He was present and drove the machine. It started off working without a hitch of any description. We worked about six hours that day and had no trouble whatever with the machine, and we worked it on two crops of wheat and one of oats. Saw the machine next day. Defendant came to me and said he thought he had broken it, and asked me to go into the paddock and repair it. When I arrived I found there was no break at all, and nothing the matter with the machine. Wo then took it to defendant’s paddock and worked it there, when defendant broke a fitting quadrant of the machine. He broke it by pulling the tilting handle without raising the spring. I went home that evening and sent for a new quadrant which I received on the 11th and fitted it on the machine on the 12th February. I stopped in the paddock after fit Ling on the quadrant and worked the machine for three or four hours. The only fault, and which is common to all machines, was that the fans went rather too fast in a crop which was rather heavy and green. If the crop had been ripe it would have been better. Defendant came to me on the 13th and said he couldn’t get the machine to tie, and when 1 went on the 14th I found a straw bad got under the grip spring. I pulled it out and started the machine again. I found defendant had been cutting up the hill without sliding the binder back and that caused the sheaves to be tied close to the butt, I saw the sheaves where they had been cut up hill. 1 asked him why he did not slide the binder back but don’t recollect the reply he made. I saw for myself that the binder had not been slid back. The price of the binder delivered at the Christchurch railway station was £69, and travelling gear, £4. This machine had an extia sheaf carrier, which cost £2, The railway carriage to Winchester was £1 8» Bd. When we made the agree* ment 1 was to procure a machine at the market price going at time of delivery. I supplied him with the other items charged in tbs particulars amounting to £lll6s 3d, and the time 1 charged for make up the total amount defendant is sued for. Defendant brought the machine back on Ist March, and 1 went to see him on the 3rd March. I received a letter on Ist March stating defendant had returned the machine as it was not up to what was represented (produced). I sent him a letter on 3rd March in reply, which i handed him myself and read to him also and on the 6th March I sent him another letter (produced). I sent an account with it.

Cross-examined : It is a Howard binder. He didn't ask me for a McCormick, but asked me to get the best machine. I think he mentioned the Wood machine, but I told him I thought the Howard was the best. I am not agent for the Howard, but I sell any that are in the market. I never advertised as agent. I buy any machine on my own account and sell to the best advantage. I bought five McCormicks in 1883, and Howards as well, but have only bought Howards this year. I bought this one in Christchurch. I never told defendant I was agent for the Howard. I gave him three months’ credit from December, 1883. There was nothing mentioned about paying after threshing season. I told him I did not wish to be hard on him, but would take half of the amount this year and half next year, with interest added. He told me he did not wish to take delivery till he began cutting. Howard’s machines had been in the district two seasons before. I never had one of them turned back on my hands before this one. The machine started in Hall’s crop in the same paddcck. The crop was green and light, but had heavy heads. I went three times to put the machine right. Re-examined by Mr White: It was only on one occasion I went up and found anything wrong with the machine. I have shown the machine, since it was returned, to Mr Badham,and Mr Job Earl, experienced farmers, who use this kind of machine. Mr W. Twentyman, who is agent for them in Christchurch, tied six knots with this machine yesterday by hand and both ends came through in the ordinary way, 1 have done nothing to the machine since it was returned on Ist March.

William Twentyman, junr., deposed : lam employed by Messrs Twentyman and Cousin, of Christchurch (who are sole agents in New Zealand for the Howard machines), as a binder expert. 1 saw one one of them yesterday, shown me by plaintiff, and made a full examination of it. It had apparently been used very little, and was in perfect working order. It had been .out in the wet a little time, and some of the parts were rusty. I tied a few knots, and the apparatus did as well as it possibly could do. Nothing was wrong with the machine. In my opinion the machine I saw yesterday corresponded with the order given by defendant, and is of the latest pattern. The price this season is £7O, with two extras and travelling gear. Re-examined : The plaintiff bought the machine from us in either March or April last. It was delivered to him about October last. William Taggart deposed ; I am a contractor, and remember seeing plaintiff and defendant together in a paddock belonging to the latter in the early part of February last. I saw the machine working. Plaintiff started it, and defendant was driving, I looked at the machine and did not see anything the matter with if, and nothing was broken, neither was there any difficulty in working it. I afterwards saw the quadrant broken by defendant in trying to lower the machine without lifting the spring. George Meredith deposed : I am a contractor and farmer. I was working in an adjoining paddock to Smith’s this season, and saw him driving the machine. Saw plaintiff go in and out of the paddock. As far as I aaw of it, the machine worked all right. The crops adjoined with a fence between. I heard defendant tell plaintiff the machine didn’t go to please him, but he did not say why, I know from my own knowledge that defendant had no experience in driving a Howard machine. He said he was like ourselves, knew nothing about the machine except driving the horses. I had more than one conversation with him about it.

Cross-examined : The tieing was good enough ; it was doing its work as well ae our machine.

>" ; Re-examined; Defendant asked me li the tieing gear could not be made to tie tighter, or be stopped from slipping the sheave* s . We tightened a screw and then slacked it again, as it did not do any good. I had no experience myself with a Howard machine. 1 used a McCormick. By the Court ; During the time I was in the paddock close to the machine (half an hour) ene or two sheaves slipped, just the same as occurred with our machine. For the defence Mr Hamersley called Richard Smith, who deposed : I am the defendant, and purchased a machine from plaintiff, according to the order now produced. I asked for a McCormick machine, but plaintiff said the Howard was far superior and he would guarantee it to be better. I then said I’d lake a Howard and signed the order. I didn’t hear any more about the purchase till he told me it was at Winchester. I said I didn’t want it till I was ready for catting my crop, aa 1 did not wish the bill to become due till 1 had received money to pay for it. He said he gave three months’ credit. No dat* was mentioned. I took delivery 6th February. When 1 told him 1 did not want to take it till I was ready for cutting, he replied it was ready at any lime for me. I took it to Hall’s first and plaintiff started it. Several man were in }he paddock at the time. Three or four acres were cut for Hall. It worked any way but well, and slipped a good many sheaves. It would go on working and then begin missing and then by degrees it would not tie at all. I then went to plaintiff who put it to rights. He told me at one time there was a straw at the back of the spring and at another time a grain of wheat was in the gab. I told him it was going to make a bad job and the best thing he could do was to take it back. He said he could not take it back now as the season was well on and every person had got machines who wanted them, and he could not sell it. Alter ho came up it went well for a short time, but I had to go back to him on the following day as she got in the same state again. I drove the machine after he left and nothing was altered in it aftsr he did so. I had it for eight days and plaintiff was with it every other day. I f told him the last time that if it humbugged me any more I would put a tiller on the ground as the first loss was the best. The crop was ripe, and so was Hall’s. It worked no better and I put it on one side because it was not able to do the work and I finished work with a tilter. During the seven days I had it, it cut 23 acres. Plaintiff told me she would cut from 12 to 15 acres per day. I returned the machine and sent plaintiff a letter also, stating I did so because it was not what it was represented to be. Cross-examined : When I returned it I did not see plaintiff at first but did so after. I received the letter (produced) from plaintiff a fen days after. It was read to me by himself, together with the account. I told him I would consult ray solicitor. I made a proposal to him to take it back, as I was not flush of money at the time. I offered him a horse valued at £lO and £5 in cash as payment for the few days I had had the machine. The plaintiff would not accept the offer, but put some roofing iron in the machine to prevent the stuff scattering about. I did not take notice of two letters he sent me because I was busy and had no time to do so. It never cut 9 acres a day because it could not do it. I have often driven a tilter, but it is very different with a Howard machine. ■ Walter Moore deposed : I am a farmer, residing at Geraldine. It does not depend on the driving of a machine whether it ties well or not. Tieing if not effected by driving. I have had experience from seeing them at work on my own land. Thomas Hall, a farmer at Kakahu, deposed: I remember the machine defendant got from plaintiff. It started cutting my crop first. Plaintiff was there when it started, and 1 was there also part of the time. It did very poor work, even when plaintiff was there. It did notmatro ta even sheaf, and some of them were not tied at all. It cut about four acres of my crop when something went wrong, and I pulled the machine out and would not have it work in my crop again. I used a tilter instead. I saw It cutting Smith’s crop. It did dirty work and was not tieing clean. A good few nherrjs were left nntied, and a good deal came out of those supposed to be tied. There was more waste than when a crop was cut with a tilter. 1 never heard plaintiff complain of defendant’s driving. I do not consider the machine any good to a farmer. It was not one that I would have, i Thomos Buckley: I stocked for defendant during last harvest, and saw the machine at work. That done was dirty. The sheaves were not bound, and when they were they would have to trim ibe top with their hands, to take tin loose corn off. Those that were bound, were bound loosely. It would cut sometimes right enough, and tie right enough. It was an average crop, with very good heads. Never heard plaintiff complain about Smith’s driving, or the way he used the machine. 1 never worked with the machines, and know nothing about them. I saw plaintiff at times show the defendant how to work the machine. Arthur Murdoch deposed: I was working in next paddock to defendant’s, and saw the machine working twice. It was working the same as any other one, tieing loosely and missing some sheaves. I have only worked these machines this season ; used tillers before. The machine I was using was a McCormick. There was no complaint with that. I should think that Smith drove properly. Almost a quarter of that cut was missed and loose. Cross-examined ; The McCormick machine missed the sheaves now and again. The best of them do so. Re-examined : I never saw so many slipped as by Smith’s machine. John Kelland, deposed : I am a farmer at Kakahu, and own the property let to the contractors whe were witnesses here today. I saw the work done by the Howard machine. It did very unsatisfactory work, extremely so. The sheaves appeared badly tied and a lot were loose with straws at both ends ends, sticking out and some sheaves were put off occasionally untied. I have not had any experience in working the machines myself but have seen half a dozen working, The way the work was done by that used by defendant would be a serious loss tc any farmer. The fans were tossing the stuff about all over the paddock, which would be lost. I have known defendant to drive horses forever fifteen years. He

drove the horses with this machine properly and gave it every chance. If I had bought that machine and it had worked as it did I should not have kept it and allowed my crop to be sacrificed. It did not do the work it should, as it did not average more than four acres per day. William Woodley deposed : I went into the paddock to see how the Howard machine was working. It was then tieing, but it soon stopped doing so. It was then adjusted by defendant and it went on again all right, but it soon stopped again. The work was not done in a workmanlike manner. When it stopped binding it scattered the stuff* about quite loose. There was a deal of waste.

James Findlay deposed : I have had about 7 years’ experience in reapers and binders. They are not diffieult to drive when put in order and handed over to the purchaser. A person used to driving could easily drive a machine if it were in order. Cross examined: I have s°en one or two Howard’s binders. I have found them go wrong by* straw getting into the knotter, and it would not work properly unless taken out. If not taken out it would not tie, but keep missing the sheaves. If a grain of wheat got between the jaws of a knotter it would hinder it from tieing. These stoppages are easily remedied if a man knew were to look for the cause. Richard Smith, recalled: I have looked at times into the knotter to see if any straw was there when it would not tie, but could see nothing. Re examined : I don’t know to this moment why the machine would’nt work. After counsel on both sides hed addressed the Bench, judgment was given for defendant, on the ground that the machine was totally unfit for the purpose for which it was required ; cost? , to go with the judgment. A. Sherratt v. J. Fleming—Claim £7, on a dishonored promissory note. Mr White for plaintiff, and Mr Hamersley for defendant. Mr Hamersley, on behalf of his client, confessed judgment, but stated that there was a counter claim for a much larger amount for work done and material supplied, which would form the ground for a cross action next Court day. He would ask that execution be withheld till that was heard, Mr White objected. Mr Hamersley stated that defendant had not had his wages paid that were due to him. Plaintiff had £8 of his in hand. The Bench remarked that if that were the case the claim was paid. Mr Hamersley said that the only way the matter in dispute could be determined was for his client to bring a cross action against plaintiff, which they were going to do. Judgment was then recorded for plaintiff, with costs and solicitor’s fee. The Court then rose.