RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1562, 31 March 1887, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Geraldine—Tuesday, March 29, 1887. [Before H. 0. S. Bad delay, Esq., R.M., and the Rev, G. Barclay, J.P.] CATTLE TRESPASS. R. H. Pearpoint was fined 7» 6d and costa for allowing a cow to wander »t large in the Town District. W. R. D. Lawson was charged with allowing a bull to wander at large in the Town District, contrary to the By-laws of the Town of Geraldine. Mr Hamersley appeared for the Town Board. defendant pleaded “Not Guilty” to its being a bull—it was but five months old. . W. G. Sberratt, Town Ranger, deposed to finding the bull wandering at large on March 10. Had t»ken it to Lawson’s, when his little girl and boy acknowledged it as'belonging to defendant. C. E, Sberratt, Clerk of the Town Board, proved the By-Laws put in as those of the Geraldine Town Board. Defendant explained that it was only a calf, 5 months old, that was still sucking. It had been brought into the yard with the cow, and had been put round the corner while the latter was milked. The Bench said they had nothing to do with the age. A. fine of 10a would be inflicted. The Town Board declined to ask for costs. Ellen Kennedy was fined 15s and coats for allowing two head of cattle to wander in the town. N. Dunlop, W. W, Campbell, J. S. Waite, and D. Mcllraith were each fined 7s 6d and costs for allowing horses to wander in the public streets, CITIL CASES, E. Woffendin v. L. Willcocks, jnn.—■ Claim £5 2s fid, for work done. Mr White for plaintiff, Mr Hamersley for defendant. Defendant filed a set-off of £lO 6s. L, Willcocks, defendant, sworn, said he admitted the particulars ns correct with the exception of what b»d been allowed for cutting. He had out 195 acres at la per acre. Had supplied three horses. No arrangement had been made as to what should be charged for them: fourpence per acre was s fair charge for each hors*. Had agreed with plaintiff to drive a binder for Is per acre. Nothing had J been *aid about horses. Had gone to plaintiff’s to drive, and plaintiff said ho wanted his horses for two or three days. Plaintiff aaked him to fetch throe horse*, and ho could have what he and plaintiff* «on made. He agreed and brought the horses. Did not «ay anything to plaintiff’s son about the horses. Brought the horses end worked them for two days before plaintiff’s horses came at all. Cut 22 acres io those two days. Plaintiffs horses then came, and the horses were worked spell about till 195 acres were cut. Had given plaintiff £ls, and kept £5 hack for the services of the horses. Plaintiff had asked defendant for the money. Defendant contended that the

£6 were due for the services of the horses, To Mr White : Out 80 «ore« for L. Willcocks, for W. Bennett 14 sores, for Ennis 14, for myself 40, and for 8.. Woffendin 35 acre*. Did not arrange with plaintiff that he (plaintiff) was to find a reaper and binder three horses, feed, string and oil, Wpffondin to stand the wear and tear of th machine and find his son's labor, and 1 was to find three horses and give my own labor. I and the soa were to taka cutting of crop on E. Woffendio’s account at 6s per acre, and that 1 was to be paid la an acre for myaelf and horses. That was the arrangement, but I was to find no bones. lam quite sore of that. Woffendin was to find the feed for hie three horses and mine. He found about £2 warth of feed. The hones were usually fed. on the oats we were cutting. During the time they were cutting for me they were fad on my oats. When the farmers do cot find the feed the proprietor of the machine doea. The arrangement mentioned was . not made in the presence of Woffendin, sen., and bis two son*.

To the Bench; That was the agreement, but the horses were not mentioned. It was made in the presence of Herbert and Frederick Woffendin. To Mr White! There was nothing;said about horses till I sis taking the machine from hla place. There bad been no catting done at this time. I took the horses because he said we could have what we made.

To Mr Hamereley : I expected jto be paid for my horses when I took them upl To the Bench! .No one was there when 1 made the bargain with Woffendin sen., but when i made it with Woffendin, jun., the brother was there.

To Mr Hamereley: At the time the pork waa done Frederick Woffendin, who was to work with mo, had bis arm broken. He was to go with me to see if anything went wrong with the machine and tell me what it waa. I offered Fred, that 1 would go and drive tor Is per acre, provided the father found everything, I said nothing about hones till 1 went to take the machine away. Had never aaid anything to Fred, about horses.

L. Willcocks, sen., sworn, said ha was ant'd in Court for £6, and' judgment was given for him. Ha never had any con* versation with Woffendin or his son about the agreement with hie (Willcocks’) son. The fair price for driving a reaper and binder is la per acre if the man la boarded. The fair charge for three horses would be la per acre. To Mr White : That would be 2a for a man and three horses. It only requires one man with a machine*

A. McKenzie, sworn, esld he had ex* perience in cropping for the past 10 or 12 years. A fair price per acre for a driver for a machine would be Is per acre and found. A fair price for three horses would be from 9d to la per acre. Is would not be an outside price. Benjamin Trumper, sworn, said be had had some considerable experience in cropping. A fair price for driving a reaper and binder would be Is per acre, and for three horses la 6d. To the Bench : I have bad, about 16 years' experience, and have got that price myaelf. To Mr White: I had seven acres cut by Willcocks. Morris sworn, said Fred. Woffendin told him that hie father had agreed to give his (Wilcocks’) brother Is per acre to drive the reaper and binder. He said no horses were mentioned. To Mr White: This conversation took place at Dunback, in Otago, days after last Easter. That was all that had passed. The conversation lasted only a few moments. Mr White called

E, Woffendin, plaintiff, who, upon being sworn, said: I arranged with defendant that be w&s to work himself and three horses with my boy Fred, at Is per acre. I was to stand the wear and tsar of the machine. I was also to find the fend for the six horses when the farmers did not do bq. My sons Fred, and Herbert were there at the time. They eat 13 acres for Bennett, 16 for Ennia, and 30 for me. I told him at the time it was a 30 acre paddock. I have always paid for it as a 30 acre paddock. To Mr Haneraley: The SO acres are all in one paddock. i bad another two acres done by my son, Wiilcocks was not engaged at this ; he was never in the paddock during the harvest. This whs cut after the agreement was made. The agreement was made at ray place at the 'end of January, 1886, in a yard close to the honae. My two aooa were there at the time. It was closed the second day, I dont know whether both the sons were there the second day. The second meet* ing was in the yard. My sons were helping me overhaul the machine. Defendant told me be had taken his fa'her’s crop, and was ready to take the machine. 1 said he could taka it upon the former conditions, Is per acre. Ido not know whether he bad the three horses with him. I did not say anything about my horses ejteept that they were ready when ho was ready to start. My horses went down I believe the next day. I sued L. Willcocks for the £5,-and he got judgment against me. .1 did not swear then that 1 made the agreement with him. I- understood that Edwin Wiilcocks had made the arrangement with Lot Wiilcocks on my account. I swore that Edwin Willcocks had said that he had taken the crop on my account, and 1 brought my case cn that and lost it.

To Mr Whit® ; The cutting was don® over 12 months ago. Frederick Woffendlo, sworn said ; I was present at the arrangement made between my father and Willcocke, namely, that I and Willooclcs were to take cutting on my father's account. Willcocke was to have la, sod my father to find feed for all tha horses when the farmers did not. Father waa to find the machine, 3 horaea, oil, twine, wear and and tear of tha machine, and the labor of of witness. I knew that was why tbs Willcocks’ got tha work, because my wrist had baen broken. The agreement was made in our. yard. My brother Herbert, my father and I, were present. We out 13 acres for Bennett, 15 for Ennis, and 30 for my father. 1 made a memorandum of it at the time, and afterwards made a copy of it. We cut 30 acres for my father all in one paddock. There was a little done in another paddock by myself. Willcocks was not there at the time. Ho was working with his father at Orari and I for my father. I took the machine back to Orari and we went on cutting. 1 can't remember the day when the agreement was made. It

was a little after dinner. I was only present at one interview. We were all at the machine, i broke the dog-string of the machine in my father's paddock, Willcocks was not there then. The agreement was for ss. 1 could not say that we ever got 5s fid from anybody. I agreed with Ennis and Bennett, « illeoeks, I believe, bad no horse when be cams up for the machine. I think our own horses to k (he machine away. I have not talked about the arrangement to my father for over three weeks. When I spoke to him about the agreement be did not have to correct me, I told him the same a* 1 have (old the Court now. My brother Herbert waa then when he talked to me about the matter.

Herbert Woffendin, about 14, another eon of the plaintiff, sworn said t 1 was present fat the arrangement.' The agreement had bean for Wil'cocks to find himself and three horses. The conversation took place in our own place, against the sheen dtp. The machine was at the houae. Willcocks had no horses with him. 1 was working with my father at the dip* Fred., my brother, waa there. I could not say what Fred, was doing, He came to us shoot the same timx ae Willcocks,-*a little before. After that we worked at the machine. Willcocks bad no horses when be came. I thought of this conversation about three weeka after it took place. No one has ever said anything about it to me. Was not in the Court last Court-day. Had heard nothing about the present case. Counsel On both aides havingaddroaaad th* Bench at considerable length, : Hie Worship said, from the evidence before him be could riot possibly give a verdict for the set-off. He bad been asked to give a verdict in equity and he did not suppose (hat a man would make an agreement to get la per acre, when according to the evidence of witnesses who were qualified to give an opinion, he waa justly entitled to 3s, but if people would make these loose arrangements they must suffer for it. They did not take advantage of the opportunities within their reach for making these agreements in a proper form, but left things till the, last moment, and then rushed to a lawyer to set things right.. The judgment would be for the amount claimed and solicitor's fee. The Court then rose.

TBMUKA.

Wednesday, March 30, 1887. [Before J. S. Beswick, Esq,, R.M.] CREATING A DISTURBANCE. John Smith was charged with creating a disturbance in the Volunteer Hall on Tuesday evening, and was fined 10s and costs. MAINTENANCE ORDER. Mrs Henderson applied for a main* tenance order against her husband, William Henderson, who had deserted her. Mr Wood appeared for Mre Henderson, and Mr Tosswill for defendant, Mr Tosswill said he was not prepared to go on with the case, Be had under* etood from a conversation he had with Mr Wood last week that be would not object to an adjournment of the case, and so be (Mr Tosswill) was not prepared to go on with it, as he had not his papers with him. He would apply for an adjournment for a week,. His Worship said ha did not think the case should be adjourned, but under the circumstances, aa Mr Tosswill was not prepared, he could, take the ease in Timaru on the following day. Mr Wood said he would agree to that hot for the hardship it would entail on Mrs Henderson if she had to go to Timaru to give evidence. After some further argument Hie Worship said he would take Henderson's evidence.

Mary Henderson, sworn, laid; 1 am the wife of William Henderson, formerly of this town. I am very badly off, my husband having deserted mi for more than two years. Received no money from him for two years last October. We lived very unhappily previous to his oiog away. Instead of being my friend and protector he was my worst enemy. Have no other means of “I support. Had tried to get a little nnrs* / ing, but wu/unable to do eo. Had been in receipt of charitable aid for 12 months. Had one child, a girl, a little over 11 years of age, who was now attending school. She was not fit to do any work. To-Mr Tosswill: She was seeing for the support of herself'and her child. In the course of some farther eraseexamination Mrs Henderson stated that her husband had said in a letter that he h»d been earning £3 12a per week. His Worship said with the whole of the facts before him he did not think Henderson was-entitled to much'consideration.

Mr Wood then applied for an order giving the custody of the child to Mrs Henderson.

His Worship said he would; make the order giving Mrs Henderson the custody of the child, and if Mr Tosswill wiahed he would adjourn the other caee till the following day at Timaru. • Mr Tosswill, who said he bad ten or twelve letters to produce, again applied for an adjournment for a week, aa he should then have time to communicate with his client.

His Worship declined to go any further, and adjourned the oaae till the following day at Timaru. '

CIVIL CASJSB. Property T«z Commissioner t, J, Yeivin—Claim £1 6a.

Mr White appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Aspinall for defendant, Mr Aspinall took the objection that Allan ought to have been seed with Velvin. The objection wae over-ruled. J. W. Waiving sworn ; I was a partner with Mr A. R, Allan. As a partner 1 received no notice from the Property Tax Commissioner. The partnership did, Filled in the paper, and sent it to Wel-‘ liogton. The £6OO exemption claimed has bean struck out sines. That sum was the only exemption I sent tha statement co Wellington, end got no reply etating the exemption had been struck out. _Whea about a month ago I received notice asking fov r / payment of tax, I wrote asking what I r had to pay for, and got no answer. That was the first intimation I received that the exemption had been disallowed. To Mr White : Was not called upon to make a property tax return individually. Do not read the Government Gaaette. Hid not make a aeparate fetuia. Had

- DO private property. The partnership r ; return was the only one made. Do not think Mr Allan had any separate property; everything was in hia wife’s Dame—both the furniture and house. Mr Aspinall said that was the defence. Under section 14 defendant was entitled f) to one exemption, and he held it had ■ been improperly struck out. Defendant owned no. private property. All his property was included in the partnership, Mr White held.it was the doty of the 'the- partners to have sent in individual statements, and as they had not done so he held they were not entitled to •. the exemption. If thosestatcmenls were Dpt sent in it was possible that persons Dot sending them in not only saved the exemption, but avoided • paying thetas at all,, He quoted clauses 14 and 92, and sections 30, 36, 37, and 38 in support of his-oontentions. /In, reply to Hia W'orabip, Mr White aaid. he believed that everyone must send in a statement, s ■ His Worahip, after examining the form f on which the statement was made, said an extraordinary thing was that the paper had gone tht the Property Tax office, ai}d bad b<*< i a stamp affixed, and then aui .ached out afterwards. It. seemed to him there bad been some irregularity. yMr Whlfe made an explanation, and then suggested that the tax should be £aid, and if the Commissioner found it ad been improperly; levied it would be, refunded. •, ;;i ,His Worship said .the Court, must deal . with the question as if the plaintiff was a private individual. y After some more argument, Mv White ■aid, taking into consideration defendant’s statement on oath that he bad no private property, he would consent *,o a verdict for defendant, His Worship than gave judgment for defendant with costs. Property Tax .Commissioner v. M. Guerin—Claim £6 6a 9d. Mr White appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Hay for defendant. A defence had been filed in accordance with the Act, bat Mr Hay said after look* ing over the papers be had just received rfrom Mr Whitp he found he had been v misdirected, and so he would cement to / a verdict for plaintiff. Judgment was given for plaintiff with costs, including soliciter’s fee. The Coart then rose.