RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1240, 18 September 1884, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka—Monday, Sept. 7, 1884. [Before H. Kobinson Esq., K,M.] CIVIL CASES. T. Hodgson v. Goodwin —Claim £2 17s 6d.—The amount had been • paid, and judgment was given for the costs. Singer's Machine Co. v. G. McS. Gentlemun, and the Same v. J. Beri, were both adjourned till next Court day on the application of Mr Aspinall, who said Mr Hamersley was unable to attend. N. Money v. J. H. Hunter —Claim £4 lis lOd. The plaintiff put in an agreement showing that defendant purchased goods from him on the deferred payment system. He had sold him goods to the value of £2O, and a balance of £4 lis 10d remained due. The defendant said that he was summoned before the last instalment was due. The plaintiff said be would not have . summoned only that the goods weroffered for sale. flis Worship said the plaintiff was too quick and would be nonsuited with costs. F. Franks v. Scarlett and Co. (Christchurch)— Claim £lO. Mr Aspinall appeared for the plaintiff, and Dr Foster for the defendants. The plaintiff stated that the defendants asked if he had any hogsheads for sale, He replied that he had, at 10s 6d each, delivered at the Temuks Railway Station. The defendants replied they would take 20 hogsheads at 10s each. Plaintiff forwarded 22 hogsheads next dav, giving two hogsheads in, as they were not as good as they might have heen. He next day got a telegram from Christchurch stating that the defendants had refused to take delivery of the hogsheads as they were no use. The hogsheads were worth 10s. The best hogsheads are worth 255. To Dr Foster ; Hogsheads which " ware called " stinkers " were capable of being used by being enamelled at a cost of Is per hogshead or cat up and made into smaller ones. The hogshead? he had sent were fit for cellar work. Peter Coira, hotelkeeper, said the price he had to pay for hogsheads was

255. Farmers would be glad to get hold of a hogshead for 10*. M. Hansen, cooper for 37 years, and 20 years in the Colony, said he went to Christchurch to examine the hogsheads. He found four with bad bung staves and three stinkers. They could easily be cleaned. There were two with bad heads caused by exposure in the sun. His price for making a good new one was £1 10s. Old hogsheads are worth from 8s to 15s to work up into kilderkins. There were eleven of the hogsheads fit for travelling and six or seven fit for cellar use. To make them all fit would cost 2s 6d. If two hogsheads were given in they would repair the others. He would give 12s a piece for the hogsheads.

To Dr Foster : He was not prepared to swear that it was not trua that in some of the barrels the timber was rotten. Twenty of them were p i f-ctly sound.

Dr Foster then read iue evideuce taken in Christchurch for the defence, and commented on it.

Mr Aspinall having replied, His Worship said he had read the evidence carefully aud thought the case was in a uutshell, The plaintiff recsived an order for good hogsheads and he only sent ones which he admitted were net as good as they might be. Judgment would be given for defendants with costs. The Court then adjourned. _ * GERALDIICE. Wednesday, Sept, 17. [Before H. C. Baddely, Esq., R.M., and L Dr Fish, J.P.] ALLEGED TJNLiWFULLT FELLING TIMBER. John W. Jones was charged with unlawfully felling timber in the Kakahu Bush, contrary to the Act of 1877. The accused pleaded guilty, and stated that in June last he wanted a few round stakes, so he went to a manuka scrub, cut some and took them away. A few days after he got a letter from Mr Wigley to the effect that he had been informed he had been cutting timber belonging to the Crown, and cautioning him against doing so. He afterwards saw Mr Wigley, and told him he should not do so again.

Thomas H. Wigley deposed : I informed defendant that I had heard he had cut stuff from the land in question and sold it. defendant acknowledged he had done so, but that he would not cut any more. By Inspector Broham : I can't s»y that defendant persisted in cutting the timber. I went the other day and saw where the bush had been cut into. I did not see defendant cut the timber. Three hundred stakes were cut altogether from what I heard Macdonald deposed : I know the land from which the timber was taken, and I laid the information. I saw the stakes. About 300 were cut. Some of them w-sre 3in. through and others 2fin. There was no heavy timber growing on the section. Defendant sent a man to take the stake 3 away. Inspector Broham stated that the Ranger for the district (Mr'Fussell) was in Court, who knew the district. He did not desire to press the case as defendant had pleaded guilty to the charge, The case was brought before the Court as a deterrent against others offending in a similar manner. The Bench fined defendant £l, with costs of Court and witnesses, expenses, ±,B 6s 6d. Defendant to pay the same within 21 days. FAILING TO SUPPORT. Robert McLellan was charged with that he did not contribute towards the support of William McLellan. Mr Hamersley appeared for defendant. Constable Willoughby deposed that some time since William McLelJun, who was described as a pauper, was receiving charitable aid. He was blind, and had two sons, of whom defendant was one, who agreed afterwards to support their father. The defendant, who is in work, drinks his money away. By Mr Hamersley : I can't say that Wm. McLellan is unable to support himself. William McLellan not being present the case was held orei for his attendance. Ultimately Inspector Broham informed the Bench that the defendant did not wish to appear. Constable Willoughby explained to the Court the circumstances of the case, Mr A. Sherratt, a member of the County Council, came to him and told him that William McLellan was in straitened circumstances, aDd that neither of his sons had paid anything towards their father's support although they had agreed to pay 5s per week each for that purpose. He (Constable Willoughby) saw William McLellan afterwards and asked him to get the 5s per week from Robert McLellan. Ho did not request him to take legal proceedings. Mr Hamersley contended that the infromation had been laid from hearsay. Under the circumstances as above narrated the Bench dismissed the case. CIVIL CASES. Greorge Rae v. Friendlander Bros.— Claim £24 10s 2d. Mr Hamersley appeared for the plaintiff. George Rae deposed : 1 am the plaintiff in this case, and know James Joe, a farmer, who had some grain carting to do. The grain belonged to defendants. I did the carting, and charged L 210 s. 1 Haw Mr Hugo Friedlander before the carting was done, when I told him I would not go on with the carting unless he gave me his word of honor that he would pay me for it. He promised he would, and I went on

with the wv,rk. Aftpr the work was done I asked Mr Hugo Friedlander for the money for the work, when he refused to pay me. Hugo Friedlander acted for himself on behalf of the firm.

By defendant : I came to see you about the matter, and told you I would not go on with the carting unless you became security. "When I came to you I had a few loads delivered. I st.irfpd the cartage for James Joe, but gave it up, and afterwards arranged with you on your guarantee. I took the contract for carting at l-|d per bushel for oats and 2d per bushel for wheat. You told uie you wou'.d go security for the money. I swear this. This was agreed to at your office. I only saw you once about it. No one has paid me for the carting of this grain, but James Joe gave me an order on you, and I looked to you for payment of the order. I -arted 2850 bushels oats at l£d per bushel, and 2704 bushels wheat at 2d. I received nothing at all in cash, but I got 100 bushels feed oats. Mr Hamersley contended that this was no set-off.

Witness : I agreed to pay Is 6d per bushel for the oats. Tl.a sacks were returned. I agreed with Joe to pay for the oats. I also got another 100 bushels oats after the contract v. .is completed, and paid Joe for them. I paid Is 6d per bushel. I would not have continued the carting if Hugo Friedlander had not guaranteed it. I was particular to make this arrangement with Friedlander Bros., because I heard they had a bill of sale over Joe's crop. That was after I had carted two laodß, and that was the reason of my throwing up the contract with Joe. James Joe deposed : I am a farmer residing in the Geraldine district, and bad a crop duriug the last year, and wave a lien over it to the defendants, 'j'bay got the crop and the plaintiff got the carting. Plaintiff carted two loads for me. He went away afterwards to see defendants, and I was present during the interview about payment for the cartdge. The plaintiff wished to know who was going to pay him for the cartage. Hugo Friedlander said " I'll see you paid, on my word of honor." After this plaintiff returned and finished the carting. Friedlander Bros, got the grain. Cross-examined : I was present when you gave your word of honor that you would pay for the carting. I did not hear you say during the interview between "yourself and the defendant that you would not pay for the carting of the grain. I did not hear you say that if yon had to give a guarantee for the carting you would get Ashburton carters to do the work, No one has settled with Rae for the carting. I gave an order on you to 'Rae for the carting. I did so because you got the grain. I also gave Rae an order on jou for 100 bushels oats. I did not deduct the value of the oats from the. account for cartage. The oats were sold to Rae by me at Is 3d per bushel, the same as you charged me.

.By Mr Hamersley : The order was dishonored.

Hugo Friedlander, on behalf of defendants, raised a question of nonsuit on the ground that no particulars were supplied, and theve were certain discrepancies in the account. Mr Hsmersley contended that at that stage it was too late to raise a qusstion of nonsuit. The Bench considered that it was more a question as to an adjournmont for the purpose ot the plaintiff furnishing full particulars as to the accounts, as sufficient particulars had not been furnished under the Act. Hugo Friedlander, for the defence, deposed : I am one of the defendants in this action. On the day mentioned by defendant, Joe called on me, and said that plaintiff would not go on with the carting uuless he got a guarantee. I told Joo I would not give a guarantee. Plaintiff was called in, who said he wanted a guarantee for payment for carting in Joe's grain, I told him my firm would not give a guarantee, but assured him that if the statement which Joe gave me of his assets could be relied on, there would be ho fear of there being sufficient to pay everybody. At that time there was a bailiff put in Joe's place for rent. Plaintiff then left. In a few minutes he returned and asked me again if I would give a guarantee, and I told him it was of no use his asking, as I was still of the same opinion as before ;■ and that rather than guarantee tne payment for the carting of the grain I would send my own carters from Asbbuvton to do the work.

The witness was cross-examined by Mr Hamersley at some length. Rudolf FrieJlander corroborated the evidence given by his brother. After the counsel for the plaintiff, and the defendants had addressed the Bench on the case,

The Bench nonsuited the plaintiff. Costs not allowed. The Court then rose.