RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1544, 12 August 1886, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

■ Temuka —Wbdhksdat, Avcttst 11, 1886. [Before J. Beswick,. Esq., R.M.]. EBNC» DISPUTE. : I C. Haar" v. Mrs Bridges. This case has been before tbe Court for iome time, 1 and it was adjourned about a month ago on tbe understanding that ftp arrangement would be arrived at between the parties, but bo the case being called on, Mr Raymond, who appeared for Haar, aaid he could not come to any settlement,; as all Le could get out of thuotber side was to withdraw. the casei, ■; Mr Tosswill, en behalf of Mrs Bridges, . asked that the case ahould be heard, and this was agreed to. Conrad Haar; I am a farmer, residing at Kangitata on a, farm adjoining Mrs Bridget, Had notice from lire Bridget to fence. In pursaance-of that notice met Mr Wright, her agent, end I said we ought to go to a lawyer, and he said be did not see the good of giving money to the lawyers. 1 said “ All right;, if we can agree amongst ourselves.” He had a chain and measured it, end' took bis -share of the fence. Mr Tosswill said he had a proper plan made out by Mr Boys, an authorised surveyor, which he would put in. [Plan submitted, together with the: Survey Department's map, and a long explanation on these ensued]. Witness; He came two feet in on my land, and I wrote a letter, but I got no satisfaction. After that 1 received k notice from Wright. All 1 wept is a bit of fence on the proper line* To Mr Tosswill: I do not know whether the fence erected is in a line with the pegs. He has got no straight line. There ia ’ai bend coming towards ray land. There it o Je sod turned for 7 chains, the posts are. put, down for 5 chains, and the fence has been nicked’ out for 2d chains. He was to put. the sods on his side, and I was to put thqm' on my side. We agreed to make it, two’ feet six inches wide at the. bottom where, wa could get sods. John Haar, son of last, witness, gave’ evidence to the same effect. Mr Tosswill said his case was this: Both parties agreed to the fence originally, but after they had gone on for some time Wright discovered that A mistake had been made, Wright thCn wanted to take the fence on the proper line, but Haar would not Ist Mn.. The pegs were oo the proper line. ; ■ I His Worship said the question was, Was the original fence agreed upon right •root? Both parties appeared to agree it was not. ’ After some further conversational kind of a discussion, Mr Tosswill called - J. Boys; l am a licensed surveyor. The pegs are in the fight place, and have never been shifted.:. Some parte of tbe fence are out of Hoe four links. Hear has done 6 chains 10 links of fence,. which is worth about £1; Wright hjae done about 16 chains of the fence. The, land is worth about £4 or £5 per aorje.‘ He also explained the plan he bad made.. Hia Worship said it was no use to cqll any more witnesses, he had made up his mind as to what be should do. His judgment would be that Mr Boys go and peg out a proper fence, bis expenses to be borne equally by the parties to the suit, and each party to pay bis own costs, OJVtt oasis. Femuka Road Board v. J. Malarkay— Claim £6 25.6 d, rates doe, Mr Asjpinall for plaintiff, and Mr Toss-, will for defendant. , Mr Tesawill .objected on the groaed that the sum of £3 10a of the amount was over two years oyer due. . j Mr Aspiuall urged that the sararaona had been served before the two years hid expired. Mr Tosswill read, the clausa bearing on the subject, which went to show’ that judgment could not be given > when the rate was oyer two years due. Mr Aspinall asked Hi* Worship to exercise bis power under the equity and good conscience clause. Hia Worship aaid he could not go against the statute. H itwore a queation of law he might do so, but be could not upset , the statute. • ::y. - : Mr : Aspinall said they corid not' ine for 14 days after the rate became payable, and it would be time enough to sue two years afterwards. His Worship said that was* 14 days grace given, The rate was due on the Ist of : August, and should *, be paid, en tbe Ist of August. He decided to strike out the £3los, and hear evidence wa-: regarded the balance, £2l2s 6d.. George Bolton, late Clerk of the Board, gave evidence to the effaot that the rate was due. To Mr Tosswill: The rate became due on the Ist of June, and it was struct on the sth of May. Notice demanding 1 it was sent out on the 21at of May George Dyson, Clerk to the Road Board, produced the rate-book, showing that £2 I2s 6d was due. To Mr Tosswill: The rate was struck on May sth, 1885. I was not clerk, and do not know whether public not.iiioatipn ’of it was given. G. JBojton, recalled ; I think 1. did advertise it. The noticas which appears in the paper are tbe notices inserted referring to it. 1 think the date at the foot of the notice in the Tkmuka Leader of the 21st means that it was inserted on the 9 th. : His Worship held that the notifipatibn was sufficient, and gave judgment for £2 12s 6d and costa,. including [solicitor's W. Sweet ▼. J. Crawford—Claim £5 4s 6d. Mr Tosswill appeared for the plaintiff, and; Mr Hameraley for defendant. Mr Tosswill said the facts were : The defendant agreed to grant a loan of £IOO to the plaintiff.. . Qf. this £14.6s had never been given, andjfor this the plaintiff sued, less interest on tbe £BS 14s. William Sweet: I agreed for a loan of £IOO with Mr Crawford. The deed was brought to me for signature, and I signed ■it. I got only £BS 14s, Whsn Mr Crawford left for England ho told me to see his agent. Mr Ross was his agent, and be would not pay, and he sent me notice for the full amount »tT2 per cent. I did not see Mr Robs until after the mortgage was signed. . ■ „ . . To Mr Hameraley: Saw Mr Crawford in Timarn. There wasno building on the property, and nothing was said about it. When 1 asked for the £l4 he asked me about building, and I told- him I would if I could. Saw Mr Ross, - but he never mentioned about building. He asked was there a house on it, but fie did

not say that was the reasbo 1 did not get the £l4. He said it after I had left; I believe it wse £lO I gave Mr Toeawill to pay Mr Crawford for two half year’a interest. To the Court : There was no agree* ment about putting up a building. ' : Wi Toatwill: 1 have been acting for SwCet.' He paid me £lO, and instructed . me- ■ ■ . ; His Worship said it wai a question of solicitor and ctlenk, f \ Mr Toeawill asked to be allowed te'ez* plain, but wae refund by the Opart,jaa it was not necessary to tbe case. ;W. G. Aspinall MrOrawford came to me. leu then pressing Mr Sweet for money he owed the FreshfleriaeOhrurcli Committee. He told nrt Mr Crawford Would lend it. Mr Crawford oslhe, and he saw Mra Sweet, and it was resolved that I was to receive'..ea 'behalf of the Presbyterian Church£B6 od<L and that Mr Sweet ahould go into Timafa aid receive the balance of the money. Inever heard a word sboat building but Mr Sweet wee to go into Timers to rieoeive the balance. On behalf of Mr Sweet I aiked tor the baiaace, and Mr Boas told me he eoald apt pay it until * building weephl up. To Mr Hameraley: I was never present at «a interview between Crawford end Sweet. I believe the arrangement as to term* wns made between Sweet and Crawford. . I have no reason' to doubt Sweet's oath; I believe he is worthy of credil. :i ; • )- Caroline Sweet, wife' of plaintiff : Saw Mr A spinall and Mr Crawford ?it my house. Not en© ward was eeid'ebout the building. Saw Mr Orawtord : 'in 'Timaru, and "he told us wa opuli have -the balance as soon ka we went for it. To Mr Hameraley; The arrangement was made by my husband, Mr Hameraley explained that the defence was that the reason the money' wasnot given ip was because the buildings were “hOferected. ■- . ’V ;: ’ V: •' ’ John Crawford;; X arranged. ■ Sweet money. He considered £77 Iwae 'the ; amount hi owed, according! to hia account, but the debt to theFjesby temn church was £BS 6*. toW him sthe ‘margin after the £BS 6s was then toe small to build,hut he said that he and hie son wereworkingatthraßhingandtheywould have money. The ooly ohjection l hsd to pay was that thi baifdibg ! wiriibt'put on.' ■ : ; ’ '*• ■ i ' To Mr Tosswill: The mortgage was for £IOO, on c6tadit(onthatbu|dlibgaan#odier improvements should .hi put Obi -’T I am not aware I ever met Mlf Sweet on this subject except, in the presence of Mr Aspinall. D. M. Ross; I acted for Mr Crawford as attorney. -- He left me the memorandum of instructions (produced). Sweet came to me and asked for the balance, ” and I asked “What about the insurance V aid be told me there was ho building to in* sure,: I told him I cOuld': pay the balance." ’ v’ ,C * ... To MrTosswill: Mr Aspinall demanded the money from me.. Thi Vrosson the interest was charged in tbi aepount irefldared for £IOO iostead of '£ls ■ was'tnie $ My clerk knew aothiug of the balaioe being unpaid, and as he saw the inert* gage made out for £IOO, be rendered the account for that anacuht;. Thi interest was 10 per cent if paid within 14 daye, if-nbt 12 per qentl.'*-' ; His Worship' said he felt satisfied there was some arraiigement about * building. The mortgage deed spoke about insuring, and that would-be meaningleM if there were ho buildiogji Judgment would be' !: '’glten :: for: thi ,de* ‘ fendant with costs. t The Court then adjourned’. \ ,