RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2124, 13 November 1890, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Geraldine—Tuesday, JSTev. 11, 1890. [Before C. A. Wray, Esq., K.M.] CITIL CASES. Thos. Markham t. J. Dobbie — Claim £1 2s 6d. This was a claim for drinks supplied and cash lent while plaintiff was licensee of the Crown Hotel and for one bag of potatoes. Defendant denied ever having had cash lent to him, while as for the drink he contended that when he got drink on credit he always paid the next time he was in the township. He had paid for the potatoes at the time. Plaintiff was told be could not recover for the drinks.

In reply to His Worship the plaintiff said be bad lent defendant the cash when he was shaking dice for drinks in the bar.

His Worship said he could not allow those items, and judgment was given for the price of the potatoes, 6s. Byrne Bayley v. W. Postlethwaite —Claim £4O 17s 6d for loss sustained through sufficient chaff not being supplied to defendant’s sheep by defendant when feeding on plaintiff’s turnips at per week in accordance with an agreement. Mr White for plaintiff, Mr Hay for defendant.

On the case being called Mr White said that only one of two important witnesses from Timaru was present, and as he could not possibly go on with the case he asked for an adjournment. Under the circumstances the adjournment was granted on plaintiff agreeing to pay the cost of one witness and the solicitor’s fee, £1 Is. The second witness turned up, however, about half an hour later, and the case was proceeded with. From the evidence it appeared that plaintiff had let defendant some 20 acres of turnips to be fed off by sheep at l£d per head per week. Plaintiff put in an agreement by which he contended that defendant was bound to supply the sheep with a fair amount

of chaff, and he claimed that the sheep bad not been supplied with a sufficient amount of chaff, and that consequently the turnips had not lasted so long as they otherwise would have done by about one fourth, and that he was therefore entitled to some compensation as damages. Jhe paddock of turnips had been divided into three cuts for the purpose of feeding off, and after the sheep had partly eaten the turnips in the second cut they were put on to the third cut. Plaintiff, in accordance with the terms of the agreement, grubbed the shells in the second cut, but the sheep were not put back to eat them, and they rotted, and he.claimed £5 for loss sustained by this means. Byrne Bayley, plaintiff, sworn, admitted having signed the agreement put in. The sheep (3624) were put upon the land, and under another clause of agreement 250 hoggets. Some chaff was supplied by Mr Postlethwaite to the sheep. One load, about 50 sacks, on 17th July. Subsequently another small load was sent up. No feeders were sent up. The chaff was not enough under the agreement. J bought «he waa well under the mark if he said 40 to 50 bags per day should be sent for that quantity of sheep. If a reasonable quantity had been sent up the sheep should have been there fully one fourth longer. Had had considerable experience in feeding sheep. Had sustained fully £35 damages on the feeding. This agreement was entered ■ into by Mr Webster acting between Mr Postlethwaite and witness. Was claiming £5 because the turnips were not fed off properly. In the second section fed off the weather became broken, and Mr Webster came up and said if the sheep were put on the third cut of turnips 1000 should be put back to eat off those grubbed. No sheep were put back, and the turnips laid there and rotted.

To Mr Hay: The agreement was not signed till 17th July, though made out on the sth. The sheep were put in under verbal arrangement between Messrs Webster and Postlethwaite and witness. His original instructions to Mr Webster about letting the turnips was to let them in one block at per acre. Defendant and witness did not agree that witness would supply straw if defendant cut it. But for that suggestion the price would have been l|d for lambs, Mr Webster suggested before the agreement was signed that there would be a difficulty in making compulsory arrangements for feeding. Did not tell Mr Webster the quantity of chaff should be left at his discretion. Knew what chaff came there. On the day witness signed the agreement a load of chaff was sent up. Was quite aware before he signed that no chaff had been sent up. Met Mr Postlethwaite on the 10tb, and complained that no chaff, engine to cut it, or feeders were sent up. Did not think there was anything to prevent chaff being taken on the land. The first load got bogged. Considered it too heavy a load, the dray not suitable, and the driver at fault, Did not consider it an impossibility to get chaff on to the ground owing to its being wet. Sheep would not look at the chaff when it came. Believed the sheep would have taken ®ne-fourth longer to eat the turnips if they bad had plenty of chaff, Plaintiff did not consider the soft state of the ground prevented the chaff being put on the ground. William Moore, hotelkeeper, Timaru : Had had 15 years’ experience in feeding sheep. The difference in time sheep would feed on turnips if chaff were given depends on the weather. With ordinary weather about one-fonrth longer. If sheep were taken off the turnips when it rained and put on grass, and then afterwards put back on the turnips, the latter would, of course, last longer. If they had had plenty of grass they would not eat the turnips quicker when brought back, but would trample them more in wet weather.

James McDonald, sheep and cattle dealer, sworn, said he had had between 20 and 30 years experience in sheep feeding. Straw chaff was of little account for sheep, but oaten chaff was very good. The feeding of chaff with the turnips should make a difference of about one-eighth, not more. John Munro, shepherd, in the employ of Mr Bayley, also gave evidence as to the difference of time it would make to turnips if chaff were fed with them.

Mr Hay said the defence was first as to the agreement. It was at Mr Postlethwaite’s suggestion the question of chaff was raised, when asked to sign the agreement. As soon as he saw the agreement about feeding with chaff he raised the question as to whether he waa bound to give a certain quantity of chaff, and refused to sign the agreement if so bound, but as the sheep were his own he intended to give them chaff in his own interest. Up to the 17th July it was next to impossible to have carted chaff on to the ground, owing to the land being so wet. The agreement was signed upon the 17th July, and up to that date no demur had been made about chaff not having been given. From the 17th to the date the sheep were taken away abundance of chaff had been taken on to the ground, and the feed boxes had never been empty. Thera were eight feed boxes, and they were quite sufficient. In this case, however, the sheep did not consume a great quantity of chaff. They had always as much good chaff as they couid eat, and nothing defendant could do would make~ them oon-

sume more of it than they did. When getting the question of chaff settled Mr Bayley had said to Mr Webster that sheep would eat just as much turnips if they had chaff, as one would not satisfy them without the other. As to the turnips not being properly fed off the agreement made Mr Webster the judge of that, and it was upon his decision the matter rested, and he was satisfied that they were properly fed off, A great deal of evidence was taken in support of Mr Hay’s statement of the case.

H. B. Webster, Auctioneer at Geraldine, sworn, said he received instructions from plaintiff to find a purchaser for bis turnips. He was originally to find a purchaser at so much per acre, afterwards at l£d per week for hoggets. Saw Mr Postlethwaite and be agreed to take them provided he could get two blocks. There was an interview between defendant and plaintiff at which witness was present. At that interview they arranged as to the number of sheep defendant would put on. Witness said be thought defendant would give them chaff if plaintiff would find a horse, dray, and man to cart it. Plaintiff agreed to find horse and dray. Defendant demurred to find a man, but finally agreed to do so. Did not consider defendant bound to give a certain amount of chaff, or any. W. Postlethwaite, defendant, sworn gave evidence as to abundance o£ chaff haying been served to the sheep. He simply did it for his own benefit, and did not consider himself bound to give a certain quantity, or indeed any. Was assured by Webster the agreement did not bind him to supply chaff. Eefused to deal with plaintiff. Donald McLeod, Shepherd to W. Postlethwaite, gaye evidence as to the state of the ground, and the almost impossibility of carting chaff to the sheep before the 17th, the amount taken afterwards, and that the feeders were always kept well filled. A quantity of chaff was in the feeders when the sheep were removed. John Woodhall gave evidence as to carting chaff to the sheep. Only knew of one entrance to the padduek. Made an attempt to go through that entrance and got bogged with 25 bags on the dray, the dray going down to the axle. Considered the gateway was not iu a condition to cart chaff through. Found the land very soft inside. The tyre was of the ordinary width. Got bogged there before with fencing material for making the subdivisions of the turnips. Thos. Bates, farmer, near Geraldine, in the employ of Mr W. Postlethwaite, gave evidence as to putting up the subdividing fence. Found the land very soft, and had to carry the fencing material in some places. The ground was soft for a fortnight before the chaff came.

A, H. Postlethwaite, son of defendant, sworn, gave evidence as to bis inspecting the feeding boxes from time to time and Ending them full, The ground was very soft before the 17th, and net fit in his opinion to take the boxes or chaff over. There was always abundance of chaff kept in the boxes. This was all the evidence.

As His Worship and Messrs Hay and White wished to catch the train to Timaru it was decided to adjourn the addressing of the court and the judgment to Timaru. The court then rose.