RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1770, 31 July 1888, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tbmuka—Monday, Judy 30, 1888. (before Csptain C. A, Wray, H.M CIVI.L CASES. Judgment by default was given the following cases: —G.McS, Gent! mun v. J. Bloomfield, claim £6 6s 11c G. McS. Gentlemun v, G. Eoste claim £l4 12s lid; G. McS. Genth mun r. J- £ahu, claim £2 5s 8d G. McS. Gentlemun v. J. Byncl claim £2 8s 6d ; Yelvin and Taylor i A. Telfair, claim £1 14s 6d. I. TTden v. Thomas White —Ciau Hay appeared for the plaintifl and Mr Aspinall for defendant. ■ Isaac Uden, the plaintiff, itatei that he worked for the defendant th< time mentioned in the particulars After the harvest was done had i settlement with Mr White. Mr White wrote the statement out, anc handed it to witness. A balance o: £29 15s 4d remained due. Everything up to that date was taken into ac count. Had worked close on twc years at 17s 6d. There were some - contras, which were settled on the 12th April. To Mr Aspinall: Mr White was present when I got .the receipt from Mrs White. The document produced is all I got. I kept no accounts. I do not know how much money I got. It ought to have been £SO. Got IOC bushels of wheat.

Mr Aspinall said, in reply to Mr >v Hay, that he could not have filed a as there had not been time. He suggested to submit the account to an accountant, ;, Mr Hay said the objection to that was that the Whites, kept the account, and the plaintiff was entirely in their hands. . After some further consideration, the case was adjourned for fourteen days. • I. Uden t. Thomas Greedy—Claim £l los . >w . Mr Hay appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Aspinall for the defendant. The plaintiff stated that the amount was due to him for cutting wheat and oats for 2s 6d an acre. , To Mr Aspinall: My arrangement was to cut Greedy’s crop at 2s 6d an acre. I cut two acres, but the balance was not ripe and I went away. When I came back the machine would not work. Greedy told me to stop and I did so. The* machine broke down. The blacksmith did not put it in order. I tried to get another machine hut could not. The machine v orked badly. I tied up some of the sheaves. To Mr Hay; The machine only worked badly for the last 3 acres. Greedy made no objection to 9 acres. The weather was bad when the machine broke down, and he suffered no loss beca use he got another machine in two or three days. Could not work during those days. Greedy pointed out that the sheaves were not tied properly. A shilling an acre would bays done the work right. The usual price, per acre is 3s 6d. I only charged him?2s 6d. To the Bench: Greedy told me he would pay for' what I had done, but ■ not after I failed to complete the contract. Thomas Greedy gave evidence to the effect that he contracted with plaintiff to cut his crop for 2s 6d. Plaintiff cut two acres and went away. Witness went after him to White’s, and told him if he could not do better - not to come, He said the stuff was too short. He came and began to cut, and witness told him to stop, but he went on until the machine broke down. He tried to get another machine, and said he had been out .till 12 or 1 o’clock in the morning looking for one. He then left it. ■Witness then told him to clear out, that he could not pay him for it. Ho cut 12 acres, and the machine was throwing out 5 loose sheaves to the 1 tied. Got the crop cut by Mr Woodhead, and paid 8b an acre for it. Was willing to pay for the first 2 acres. He was 4 days looking for a machine, and the weather was fine. : His Worship gave judgment for the defendant. The defendant was at a loss instead of being a gainer, by the fact that the plaintiff did not carry out his contract. He had to pay sixpence an acre more for cutting his crops, and that came to more than the yalue of the work done by the plain.tiff., The Court then adjourned.