RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2420, 3 November 1892, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Geraldine— Tuesday, November Ist.

[Before C. A. Wray, Esq., R.M., and H. W. Moore, Esq., J.P.)] CIVIL CASES. The threshing cases.—His Worship gave final judgment in the cases recently heard at Geraldine, which arose from a threshing contractor making a breach of contract. In the case W. Taggart (Mr Wilson Smith) v. Thomas Washington (Mr Postlethwaite) judgmeut was given for £5 14s, and costs, £3 10s. In the case of Thomas Washington v W. Taggart, judgment was given for 15s without costs. , G. Ward v. T. Trengrove Claim £2 13s 6d for rent of cottage. Paintiff stated that, on account of rent not being paid, he had given defendant notice to leave. Defendant did not comply with notice, and the rent was then raised to 10s. Defendant did not leave, and the claim was for the difference between the previous and the present rent, which defendant had refused to pay. Defendant stated that his reason for not leaving when he received notice was because he could not get an empty house in Geraldine. Judgment was given for plaintiff for amount claimed with costs.

C. G. Roskruge (Mr Wilson Smith) v. G. F. Newman (Mr White) —Claim £2 ss, amount paid for cutting and grubbing gorse at the Scotsburn School, which plaintiff alleged should have been paid by defendant. Chas. G. Roskruge, schoolmaster, Peel Forest, plantiff, deposed that in 1885 he had come to an arrangement with the Scotsburn School Committee about the school paddock. For the use of the paddock he was to keep the fences cut and the gorse grubbed. Shortly after, he arranged with defendant that the latter should run his horses on the paddock on condition that defendant kept the fences cut, gorse grubbed, carried plaintiff's parcels from station free of charge, and lent him a horse, or horse and buggy, now and again. Plaintiff was living with defendant's father when the arrangement was entered into. Defendant kept the fence cut and gorse grubbed till 1890. On July 16th last defendant took his horses from the paddock without giving notice, and never spoke to plaintiff on the subject. Plaintiff waited some time to see if defendant would cut the fences, etc., and, as he did not., then sent him a solicitor's letter requesting him to do so. No reply was received and plaintiff then had the work done, and rendered the account to defondaivfc. To Mr White : There was no third party present when the agreement was made. The arrangement was to last as long as plaintiff remained in the district. About the middle of July last ceased to lodge with defendant's parents. Defendant's father said to plaintiff then "What about the horses'?" Plaintifi said " They can remain in the paddock as usual, and I expect the fences cut as before, but am not particular to a week or two." Since Newman had taken his horses out other people had run horses in the papdoqk, but plaintiff did not receive any pay for it, Robert Thcw, chairman of the Scotsburn School Committco, deposed that the paddock contained about 30 acres of land, worth about 3s per acre. The fences required cutting. Spoke to plaintiff about it. They had not been cut for two years past. The committee once paid Is 9d per chain for the work, but at the present time la or la 2d would be a iw price, for it,

Plaintiff, recalled, said he had paid for j cutting 45 chains at Is per chain. D. McKay, storekeeper, Peel Forest, had known defendant for 10 years. Several times in conversation with him defendant had stated the terms on which he was allowed to run his horses in plaintiff's paddock. Defendant was to carry parcels from the station, give plaintiff the use of a horse and buggy, and keep fences in repair. G. F. Newman, defendant, deposed that in his agreement with plaintiff there was not a word said about cutting the fences. When the gorse wanted cutting a few months afterwards plaintiff said "What about the gorse?" Defendant said " I'll do it when I get time," and afterwards did it, and got others who owed him money to do it and work out their accounts. The agreement was that he (defendant) should have the use of the paddock so long as plaintiff was "here," meaning so long as he resided with defendant's parents, and not as long as he was in the district. When plaintiff left his father's house defendant considered the agreement at an end. lo Mr Smith : Would swear that he received only £2 10s for cutting the fences, etc., for the Committee in 1885. Mr Smith here produced the Committee's minute book of 1885, which stated that defendant had boen paid £5 2s, or Is 9d per chain for the work. Defendant denied that he had ever received more than £2 10s.

Frederick Newman, father of defendant remembered a conversation in which an agreement re paddock was come to between plaintiff and defendant. The agreement was to last as long as plaintiff lodged with witness. There was nothing said at the time about keeping the fences in repair. On the 22nd July plaintiff said he was leaving Witness said "My son had better take his horse out of the paddock then." Plaintiff said " I'm not in a hurry for a week or two, but I suppose your son will cut the gorse." Said to plaintiff: " I don't know anything about it." Told his son about the conversation, and bis son took the horse from the paddock at once. D. Macfarlane, clerk Mount Peel Road Board, considered that the cutting of the gorse at the Scotsburn School as it had just been done was worth about 8d per chain. It was not worth Is, as it had not been thoroughly done. James Pithie valued the gorse cutting at 7d per chain, as it had not been properly cut. Defendant recalled, said he did not remember any conversation with Mcßae about cutting fences. The Bench thought that whatever the original conversation between the parties had been the defendant had assented to the terms as stated by plaintfff, and that he should carry them out. As the fences had not been well cut they would assess the value at 30s, and give judgment for plaintiff for 30s, and costs £2 lis 6d. The Court then rose.