RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1892, 16 May 1889, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Geraldine—Wednesday, Mat 15, 1889. [Before Captain C. A. Wray, R.M., and H. W. Moore, Esq., J.P.] CIVIL CASES. ‘ L. Gick v. T. Goodwin Claim £7 18s 3d, for work done. Mr F. Wilson Smith for plaintiff. Mr Aspinall for defendant. Lewis Gick, sworn, said the work mentioned in the account had been done by him. It had been brought to* him at various times by the threelefis and wife of defendant and bj defendant himself. They were all living upon defendant’s farm, and said the work was for defendant. Commenced to work for him July 23, 1885. The work was always charged to Thomas Goodwin, and the accounts rendered to him from time to time since then. f i he old accounts had been paid, and no objection taken to them by defendant. Witness rendered the second account to defendant, and he told him to give it to his son John, who knew more about it. Sometime after John came in, and witness asked him who the work was to be charged to, as he would not do it unless he knew, as the father had refused to take the account. The son said for the father, as the thiags were his, and called the father into the shop, when the father said it was for him. No objection was taken to the accounts rendered until the one now sued upon was rendered in March, and it was objected' to on April Bth, when defendant sent doyre £1 2s 9d and a list of work he had had done, stating that that was all he owed. Defendant never questioned the account between March and April. It was usual in working for farmers to do the work whoever brought it, To Mr Aspinall: Would swear the defendant said he would guarantee the account. Had rendered the account to defendant and to nobody else. The accounts rendered between 1885 and the present account had generally been paid by John Goodwin, but witness always gave him a receipt for his father; never for himself. Could not swear to what items were brought by defendant. Did not know John had hired his father’s horses. John Goodwin told him the horses were , ; his father’s and he was working them. John did not always bring the cart horses to be shod; sometimes the ’ other sons brought them. Defendant said on February Bth, 1886, that the work was for him. Defendant sent him £1 2s 9d, but sent a memo, of what he had actually owed witness for. Took the £l, but refused to take the odd pence on such a large account. To the Bench: When he brought the paper and the money it was the first objection I ever had to thecount since the arrangement that defendant would pay for the work. Always understood the work was for the father. The son told me so when I refused to do the work. This was the plaintiff’s case. Mr Aspinall said the defence was that the items with the exception of the £1 2s 9d were incurred by John Goodwin, the son, without the father being liable. The father in August let the son, John, have the horses, harrows, and plough at 10s per week; the son to keep them in repair. .Had never had more than the few items mentioned done at Gick’s shop, and was prepared to pay for them. De* fendant never had an account sent to him, and did not know till John Goodwin left the dfstrict that he had received these accounts. Had offered the £1 2s 9d. Gick took the £l, but not the 2a 9d, and gave a receipt against John’s account as well, which defendant refused, and also to pay the account. Gick then sued him. Mr Wilson Smith asked all witnesses to be ordered out of court, which was done. Defendant, Thomas Goodwin, sworn, denied that he ever had work done by plaintiff except the items mentioned. Had nothing to do with what his son had done. Made arrangement with his Son on July 12, 1886, to have the horses at 10s per week; the son to keep everything in repair (agreement put in). Hia son was 25 years of in January last. When he received th& v account sued on told his wife to take down the £1 2$ 9d owing l and the items, and pay Gick. Went for a receipt the next day, and plaintiff would not give it to him. Never in his life told Gick that he (witness) would be responsible for the account. Never spoke to him about the account in his life. Never gave the plaintiff authority to do the work, nor told his (witness’s) son, John, to get it done. To Mr Wilson Smith: Had had his blacksmithing done at several places. The farm had never been much worked. The profit had been obtained by grazing. Had not heard from his son since the summons was issued. Did not know where he was. Had not the slightest idea. Would be glad to find out. Thought son son. old enough to take care of himself. Did not know when he left. To Mr Aspinall; The three accounts produced were found in the waistcoat pocket of his son after he left. Had never seen them before then in his life. Was as innocent of them as a child unborn. Mr Wilson Smith, in addressing the Court, said the books showed that the plaintiff had always rendered the accounts to Thomas Goodwin. fact of the accounts being rendered to him so long, and he making no objection to them, proved he acknowledged his liability. He could, if the

Bench liked, quote the law on the iase, but did not thiuk it necessary. The Bench said the great question for the Court to consider was the credibility of witnesses. The plaintiff swore that the father and son were in the shop when the father authorised the work to be done, and they saw no reason to disbelieve him. When defendant made the arrangement with the son to take over the horses he should have intimated the change to plaintiff. He had never done so, and, therefore, he was considered still ; liable for the work, and was so liable. Judgment would be for the amount claimed, with costs and solicitor’s fee, £1 Is. The Court then rose.