RESIDENT, MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1432, 24 November 1885, Page 2

RESIDENT, MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Geraldine—Monday, Nov. 24th, 1885. [Before H. C. S. Baddeley, Esq., R.M., and Hon L. Walker, Dr Fish, Rev. Geo Barclay, Capnin Temple, and W. U. Slack, Esp.', J. P.’s,] BREACH OP TOWN BOARD BY-LAWS. Thos. Parrel l , for allowing one horse to wander (fourth offence) was fined 12s 6d and costs. APPLICATION TOR RE-HEARING. Mr White, on behalf of Mr Bayley, applied for a re-hearing in the cases Bayley v. Qnildford, and cross action Guildford v, 'Bayley, the reason being that the judgment, Mr White submitted, had not Been given by the majority of the Bench, A long discussion took place between Mr White and the Resident Magistrate, the latter holding that only one Justice (Capt. Temple) sat with him through :the case. Mr -Slack only took his seat after a portion of the evidence in the case had been given, and therefore he (the Resident Magistrate) was quite at liberty to give his own judgment, whatever the opinion of the other Justices might have been. The application was therefore refused. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL. Mr White then applied, on behalf of Mr Bayley, for leave to appeal against the judgment given in the same cases. Mr Hamereley, on behalf of Mr Guildford, objected to leave being granted. He held the facts were in favor of Guildford. Mr Baddeley declined to grant the application. • CIVIL CASES. R. Richards v. B. Bayley—Claim £1 18s. Mr White for defendant. R. Richards, the plsint'ffr stated: I worked for eighteen days for Mr Bayley, and in the meantime drew £3los. I sent him ray account and charged 6s per day. He refused to give me more than ss, and ordered me off his place. By Mr White : I had no agreement, and it was not till after I had finished work 1 told Mr Bayley I wanted 6s per day. At the end of twelve days Mr Bayley told me he had no more work for me, but then told me to spread some clay on the paddocks. I wanted £2 for doing it but he refused to give it, and gave me six days to do it in. When I went to draw the £3 10s nothing was said about the rate of wages, and it was not until I had finished with Mr Bayley and went for the balance of the money owing to ma that he would only give mo ss. Berne Bayley, sworn, stated: When plaintiff came to me for work 1 asked him if he knew the rate of wages I gave my men and he said he did not. 1 then told him I gave them 30s a week and they found themselves. At the end of 12 days I told him I would give him some top dressing to do on one of the paddocks. He wanted £2 for the job, and I told him there were six days' work in it and offered to give him a week’s wages. He asked me for money and I gave him a cheque for £3 10s, and told him it was for fourteen days pay at the rate of 5s 'per dsy. I do pay two men 6s per day. When Richards finished spreading the clay I went over the work and told him to come up soon and I would pay him. I looked at his account and found he was charging me 6s per day. I asked him what he meant by charging me 6s per day when I told him him his wages were to be 5s per day. He told me he would make me pay. By plaintiff: I sent my shepherd for you, and 1 told you what my rate of wages were when you came, Judgment for plaintiff for £l. The defendant agreed to pay the costs of the Court. Dr Foster v, J. Lorgelly—Claim £2 2s, for services rendered. The Bench declined to hear the case as Lorgelly’a partner (Wattcreuse) had before been served with a summons sud judgment had gone by default. Plaintiff could not then sue the other partner. The Court then adjourned for 20 minutes for luncheon. [Before the Hon. L. Walker, Rev. Geo. Barclay, Dr Fish, and Capt. Temple, J.P-’s] D. Macdonald v. R, Taylor—Claim £lB, for loss of a horse. Mr Hamersley for plaintiff, and Mr White for defendant. D. Macdonald, sworn, stated : I owned ahorse, which was running on land occupied by my father, (tracing showing localities put in). On 22nd September I saw the horse driven out of Holmes’ swamp on to the reserve owned by Taylor. I beard afterwards that the horse was dead, 1 went to see it, and found it lying at the foot of the cliff, which is about 100 ft high. Between the fence and the bottom of the cliff there is only few feet, where the horse was lying. The horse had apparently been driven on to the reserve through the slip-panel. I went to Taylor to see what he was going to de about it. He said he believed there was something wrong with it before the' accident. He offered ma £4 or £5 to settle the matter. I refused the offer, as I valued the horse at £lB. , Cross-examined by Mr White: I have iiad the horse for about two years, It was a draught one, and 1 gave less thin £lO for it. It was running on Holmes’ swamp, between Taylor’s reserve and one of my father’s paddocks. I was about two miles off when I saw the i

person driving the horses off the swamp. I could not say how far the horse slid, as there were a number of marks. There is grass growing on the face, but 10ft or 12ft were nearly perpendicular where the horse fell. Re-examined by Mr Hamersley : It was not a safe place to drive horses down. Allan Macdonald, sworn, stated : I am father of plaintiff. I know the reserve abd the swamp. On the 22nd September 1 saw a man driving the horses from 1 Holmes’ swamp. Tuylor’e son came to me that afternoon and said he was driving the horses and one of them had laid down and could not get up. I went to see the horse, and found it lying between the boundary fence and the bottom of the cliff. It is dangerous to drive stock along the face of the cliff. I freed the horse from (he fence, and found its back was injured, as it could not rise to its feet. It died from its injuries. Cross-examined by Mr White; It did rot live more than two or three days. We gave the horse treatment, but I saw it was no use. The horse rolled a few yards down to the bottom of the cliff when we freed it from the fence. Cross-examined by Mr Eamerslty; Where the horses were driven was not a fit place to drive them. Taylor was driving our horses out of his paddock when the accident occurred. A. Thomson ; I am a laborer. I was working for Mr Macdonald in September. I saw someone driving the horses from the swamp in the forenoon, and the aoci dent happened in the afternoon. I saw tha horse after the accident. The track on the face of cliff was not a fit place to drive a mob of young horses down. Cross-examined by Mr White: The face of the cliff slopes steeply from the track, and lower down there is a drop of about twelve feat, 1 Thos. Corbett, sworn, stated : I examined the horse. I found it bruised all over, and also injured in the > inside, and its back tendons were also 1 injured. The injuries were undoubtedly caused by a fall down the cliff. The 1 track along the cliff was not a fit place 1 to drive horses. Plaintiff re-called : stated that before the accident the horse was a sound one. Mr White submitted there was no case. No negligence had been shown in driving ' the horses. The horse had evidently 1 fallen and killed itself, but through no 1 one’s fault. He called Thos. Taylor, who said: I am son of R. Taylor. I went to turn Macdonald’s horses out of our pad- . dock. They turned up on to the hill , and I headed them back and they turned down the small track. The horse which fell was behind ; he apparently h-td something wrong with him, and after staggering for a time ho fell and rolled down the hill. I was four or five chains behind and walking rny horse. At the time the horse fell I believe I waa standing still. The horse was very low in condition. I don’t think he was worth more than £5. Cross-examined by Mr Hamersley : The horses went from our paddock on to Holmes’ land and I followed them. As the horses were going along the hill tire the others turned up the gully. The one which fell was about a chain behind the others when he fell. Chas. Walderton: On the 22nd Sept. I was working for Mr Taylor. I saw young Taylor driving the horses over the hill. He drove them off Holmes’ land and they went through the slip-panel on to the hill. Cross-examined by Mr Hamersley ; I saw Taylor again bringing the horses along the side of the hill. He waa about a chain behind them. Win. Keen corroborated the last witness’ evidence. R. Taylor, sworn, said ; 1 am the defendant. 1 saw young Macdonald on the date in question. He (Macdonald) could not see me from where he was when the horses were being driven, owing to the downs being between. I went up to the spot about twenty minutes after the accident. I made Macdonald an offer of £5. I have never before had a law case in tuy life. The face of the hill is not what you would call a lift. It is covered with native grass, and cattle graze all over it. Plaintiff, recalls d, n*td : There was no reason why the hcrsil could not have been driven. Mr White submitted that no negligence had been shown by young Taylor. The death of the horsO was a pure accident. From some cause or other it fell. Young Taylor was driving the horses at a careful pace, and he was an experienced driver. The fences were being repaired, and be did not wish to fence in Macdonald’s horses, and was simply turning them into bis (Macdonald’s) paddock. Of about a dozen horses, one fell ; and that one was behind the mob, and if it fell thr ugh pure accident, it could not be called negligence on the part of anyone. He submitted that no case bad been made out. The amount of damages must be taken into consideration. The value of the horse was- put down as £lB, but it was shown that it was purchased for only £7 or £B. Mr Hamersley, in reply, said young Taylor had two courses open to him other than driving the horses over a dangerous place. He had no legal Vight to drive the horses off Holmes’ land. Even if be bad a right to take them off Holmes’ land, he had two other courses open to him—one to take them along the road, and the other through the gateway on to Macdonald’s land, without taking them to his own. Taylor wanted to set up a defence that the horse was unsound, but this had been disproved by plaint iff; and the evidence of Corbett proved that the horse was seriously injured by the fall. Taylor took bis risk in driving another person’s stock over a dangerous place, and be should be made to bear the loss. As to the value of the horse, it was sworn by the plaintiff to be valued at £lB. He had the best right to know'the value of it. The Bsnch retired fora quarter ef an hour to consider. On returning into Court the presiding Justice stated they were of opinion that young Taylor had shown negligence in driving young stock over a place where he could not control them, and they would therefore give judgment against defendant. As to the amount of damages, it was shown that;tha horse when’bought two years ago for between £7 and £9 was unbroken, and therefore its full value was not known. They would give judgment for £l2, and the costs, £3 16s, would go with the judgment. This being all the business the Court rose.