RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1316, 17 March 1885, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Geraldine— Monday. March 16,1835. fßefore H. C, Biddeley, Esq., R.M., and 1 Dr F'sh, J.P.] . ' DRUNKENNESS. A first offender, charged with having been drunk and disorderly, was fined 10s and costs. CIVIL CARES.

J. S. Waite v. Crater— Claim £5 14s. J. S. Waite, sworn, deposed : 1 have not been paid any of the account. To defendant; The last money I received from yon was £lin November last. - Crafer. sworn, amd ; The last money 1 paid was £5. I have a receipt, but it is not stamped. The Bench refused to receive the receipt as evidence. Defendant ; I could not tell when the money was p <id. There is no date on the receipt. 1 have paid two sums of £5, but have lost the first receipt. To plaintiff; I odd you £5 in July, «nd £5 since. ICO iH not say whether I gave you money in October. Yon asked me for the money, and I told yon I had paid it I did not tell you I would pay you £1 a month when you spoke to me iu January last. To the Bench ; I paid £5 about three yv»eks before Christmas. To plaintiff; I could not say where I got the money from that I gave you. To the Bench : I paid McHraith £5 for board. l‘did not pay him £l2 in January last. The case was nonsuited. Thoe, Taylor v. J, W, Leckner—Claim £2 2s.—No appearance of either party, and the case was struck out. J. Mundell v. S. Bread ley—Claim £5Mr Raymond for plaintiff. Defendant asked for an adjournment, as bis soliiitor «as absent The case had been adjourned Inst Court day, owing to an accident to plaintiff’s so icitor on the road up, The application was refused. \J. Mundell: I am a livery stable keeper in Geraldine,. Breadley gave me n horse to break in. The bargain was made by Scott, my man, anthonsed by me. The horse was properly broken in to saddle, and angle and double harness. Tie usual price for breaking to harness is £5. Breadley had a trial with the horse, in company with Scott, He then tried him in the saddle in my pr«sence. He made no objection to the horse, and then took him away. The amount is not paid. I have had nine years experience in the colonies with horses. Scott broke in the horse, and he is a competent person and Las been in my employ for six year*. Breadley never gave any reason for not paying. Ihe home was very rough when we got him. We bad him about six weeks.

To defendant: I do not know what took place at your place when the horse was got from you. It was caught in my yard. I have a single break fit for breaking horses in. It is a general rule to put a horse in single harness, first. The reason we aeked you to take the horse away was that he was broken in. The horses shoulders would not unfit him to go info work when you took him away. I don’t remember saying I would not ride him.

To the Bench : It is necessary to put a horse into double harness secondly if it is the intention to break him to it. The horse was fit for work when it left us. To defendant: The horse’s shoulders were scalded, but not cut. To Mr Raymond : It does not interfere with, the horse, and will get right in time It is the natural result of breaking in a horse with a tender skin. I would not refuse to ride the horse.

Robert Scott: 1 am in the employ of Mr Mundell as coach-driver and horsebreaker. I made the agreement with Breadiey to break m the horse for £5. 1 broke the hone in. The hone was

perfectly quiet. We put it in a buggy and drove it to Woodbury, and Breadley drove it back. The horse was flish and Breadley galloped it nearly all the way hack. We also tried it with a saddle, and Breadley took the horse home with him. J. Mundell, recalled : Breadley never made any objection to the horse, but simply refused to pay. K. Scott ; I offered to put the horse in the coach, when Breadley said he wanted to see the horse in harness again, but he refused. I asked him for a cheque and he refused to give it, I have been five years breaking horses in. Nearly all horses sore shoulders when they are put in harness. It G not a serious damage. To defendant; I told you before I sent for the horse I would not do it under £5, that was the regular charge. That was the first meu'ioti of the matter. You wanted me to break the horse in on my own account, as you said you had been working the horse. I said I would see Mr Munde 1 about getting his break. 1 did not offer to break in the horse for £3. I at first said £4, on my. own account, and after seeing Mr Mundell I told you I would have to brea* it in on his account for £5. I told you to come for the horse and if you were not satisfied yon could leave him. He was fit for light work, though his shoulders were sore. Ke-eiarained by Mr Raymond: We could not have driven him to Woodbury if his shoulders had very bad. The collar used was an ordinary one. To the Bench ; The shoulders were washed when he cone back from Woodbury with salt and water. This closed plaintiff’s case. S. Breadl-y : I never refused to pay the money when the horse was properly broken in. The horso is not broken to ®addle or harne-s. I took the horse back from Mundell to oblige him. Scott asked me to take the horse back till bio shoulders were well and then ha would put him in the coach and single harness. The shoulders are not right yet. To Mr Raymond : After the breaking I could not put harop'-s on him. The horse was driven to Woodbury and back, pari of (he way by me. He tried to kick several times on the way. The horse goes in the sadd'e all right. Jas. Bennie, examined by defendant : I saw the colt you got from Mundell. I have been ac-natomed to horses for thirty years. The horse was not in a fit state to work, as the shoulders were thoroughly cut. No horse is fit to work if his shoulders are cut. A man who works a horse iu the state it was should be sued f- r cruelty to animals. Cross-examined by Mr Raymond : I don’t 'know how long it was after the horse left Mundell’s that I saw it. I find all horses the same. To the Bench: The collar cuts (he shoulders. A horse should be fit for work as soon as the breaker has done with it. I have seen horses’ shoulders sore from a bad-fitting col'ar, I could not tell how long it was since the horse had been worked when I saw it. Defend mt and Mr Raymond briefly addressed the Bench, and after u short consultation the Bench decided that tue case as to the horse being properly broken was proved, and gave judgment for the full amount claimed. J. Bmke v. R. H. Posllethwaite - Claim £7 10s. Dr Foster for plaintiff, and Mi Raymond for defendant. John Burke, a*orn, said: Mr R. H. Fostlethwttite ordered a spriug-cart body and pair of springs from me. The price of Ihe body was to be £6, and the springs £1 10s. I have not been paid. I applied for the money and Mr Posllethwaite said he had an account against me and he would see about it. He gave me the order for himself.

Cross-examined by Mr Raymond : The cart was for ordinary use. I have known Mr Postlethwai'e for some time. 1 also know the Rankapnka station. I don’t know whether Mr Postlethwaite is managing for his father. Ido not know to whom the business of Tusker and Co. belongs. I have heard it belongs to the Posllethwaites. 1 have be,en in Geraldine five years. Ido not known whether father or e|on is o wner of the station. I settled Tasker and Go ’s debt to Mr J. Y. Ward. 1 paid a composition of 7« in the £, I paid an an account of £8 9a. 1 sent Mr R. H. Postlethwaite a note about some sheep trespassing on my land. Another party wrote the letter. Ward left Geraldine some time ago. He was present at the meeting of my creditors eight months ago, as Tasker and Co.’s agent, and agreed to the composition. I am quite certain that I only understood the transaction re the cart was for Mr R, H. Postlethwaite, Mr Williams accepted the composition and I also paid his claim to Ward.

R. H. Postlethwaite, for the defence, said ; I have been manager for my father on the Rankapnka siation for 4 years. 1 ordered Ihe cart in question for my father. It was for carting milk to the factory. All property on the estate is my father's. There is nothing to show' in the books that my father accepted the composition. Jam attorney for my father. Cross-examined by Dr Foster; I told Burke wbat the cart was for. To the Bench; I have not transacted business la'e>y in my own name, R. H. Pearpoint; lam a merchant in Geruldme, and know Mr Postlethwaite. The evidence of this witness was objected to, it being given to prove that by general repate Mr W. Postlethwaite was the owner of the station.

Mr Raymond addressed the Court and submitted ihat if judgment was given for plaintiff the money should be held by the Court, pending a cross-action against the plaintiff. Tne Bench held that Mr Postlethwaite should have made it clear to the plaintiff that the transaction was for his farther. Under the circumstances judgment would be given for plaintiff for full amount and costs.

Dr Foster objected to the money being held by the Court, and the Bench agreed with him. Morgan v. Blair—Claim £4O; judgment summons.—Order made tliat defendant pay £5 per month. ■MMMnaNHHaM.