RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1519, 30 November 1886, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT.

Geraldine—Monday, Not. 29, 1886, [Before H.C. S. Baddeley, Esq., R.M.] HORSES at large. G. Fox was charged under the Police Offences Act with allowing horses to wander at large within the Town District, thereby damaging the window of Mrs McKay. Defendant pleaded guilty, and was fined 7s 6d and costs; he was also ordered to pay the cost of the damage done. CIVIL CASES. Dennis Coffey t. B. Bayley — Claim £26 19s lOd, for work done and extras. Mr Hamersley appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Raymond for defendant. Mr Hamersley offered to submit the case to tbe arbitration of some practical farmer living on the spot, as to whether tbe work had been done in a workmanlike manner* Mr Raymond stated that this offer had been made to plaintiff before the case came into Court, but plaintiff bad declined it. It was finally decided to leave the matter to tbe arbitration of Mr W. Postletb waite, m a practical farmer! as to

whether the work had been done in a workmanlike manner. Upon Mr Postlethwaite giving his certificate that Mr Coff'.y bus done the work according to com net, Mr Bayley to pay whatever may be f”und due on the contract, and for any extras that Mr Postlethwaite may award. All costs to be settled by the Magistrate. \ [Mr R. H. Postlethwaite, J.P, then took a seat on the bench,] E. Woffenden v. Wilcocks—Claim £5

for reaping. _ Mr Raymond appeared for plaintiff and Mr Hamersley for defendant. E. Woffenden sworn said, I agreed with the son of defendant and my own son Frederick Janies to do reaping on my account for anyone that might employ me. They did soma reaping »t defendant’s place, 80 acres. It was to be 5s per acre. My machine was used. E. Wilcocks and I are neighbors. Wilcocks knows my machine, I have talked to him about it. My son and de r o" iant’s son did the work, 1 received £ls on account of the reaping. Defendant’s son gave me the money and I gave him the receipt.

Receipt lost. The receipt was made out to the defendant. I have applied to defendant for payment. I saw him twice before I received the £ls. He said he Lad not got the money but would see about it shortly, He said this on the two occasions. On the first of May 1 saw defendant, I asked about the £5 balance, I told him his son said he disputed it. He said he did not. He Lad got to have a reckoning with his son and then he would see it was paid. He has not paid me. 1 owe nothing to the son. To Mr Hamersley ; I never made any arrangement with defendant, neither for price or anything I have made no arrangements with Wilcocks son. I gave him a balance of account. Edwin Wilcocks was to account to me for all reaping done. I sent a receipt for £ls to defendant by Edwin Wilcocks. I afterwards sent him a balance of account. He wrote me a note back to say he paid his son for the whole of the reaping. To Mr Raymond ; I owe 12s 6d to B. Wilcocks.

Frederick James Woffenden, plaintiff’s son, sworn : 1 was in my father’s employ in conjunction with Edwin Wilcocks in cutting the crop of Wilcocks, sent. We cut about 80 acres of Lot Wilcocks crop. Lot was there nearly every day that the crop was being cut. He knows the machine, as I have seen him looking at it. Edwin generally lives with his father. I made 110 arrangement with Wilcocks for the cutting. This was the plaintiffs case.

Mr Hamersley submitted that plaintiff had not proved that a contract had been made.

For the defence Mr Hamersley culled

Lot Wilcocks, vrho, being sworn said ; 1 had 80 acres of crop to reap last year, I made the arrangements with my son. I know nothin ' of my son’s arrangements with Woffenden, The work was let six weeks before the harvest. He said nothing about Woffenden when the arrangement was made. I saw Mr Woffenden after the work was done. Plaintiff asked for my son. He did not ask me for the money, 1 never had an account sent to me. Plaintfff said “ I want £2O from the boy Ed win.” I said “Ed win did not want £2O from me, he wanted about £l4 for the balance.” Edwin and 1 had a crossaccounts, and I wanted to see what my son owed roe when hia mother came back from Palmerston as she was away.

To Mr Raymond : I saw young Woffenden while the cutting wan going on, My son did not tell me what machine he was going to get. When they were cutting I thought it was Woffenden’a machine.

Edwin Wilcocks, sworn, deposed : I did reaping for my father last year, acres at 5s an acres. I don’t always live at home as I am a contractor and often camping out. To Mr Raymond; My arrangement with Woffenden was that I was to take cutting. He paid me Is per acre. I only took my father's crop. Mr Woffanden took the other crops. I have received the money from my father, but did not pay Mr Woffenden. To Mr Hamerslev : The reason why I did not pay him was because I had to find three horses for the job, and I consider there is money coming to me. After some cross-examination, His Worship stated that the Bench were of opinion that plaintiff’s case had sot a leg to stand upon. He would be nonsuited, defendant to be allowed solicitor’s fee, £1 Is. This being all the business the Court adjourned till Monday next, Dec. 6th,