RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2435, 8 December 1892, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka—Tuesday, Dec. 6, 1392. [Before C. A. "Wray, Esq., E.M.] ASSAULTING A TEACHER. Thomas Talbot, farmer, Rangitira Valley, was charged with assaulting James Gillespie, teacher of the Rangitira Valley school, and also with using insulting language towards him in the hearing of the scholars. Mr Salmond appeared for the informant, and Mr Hay for defendant. Mr Hay stated that his client admitted the charges, but had since given an ample written apology and paid all costs. He asked His Worship to allow the caso to be withdrawn.

Mr Salmond offered no objection. His client was satisfied with the apology, but having been publicly insulted and assaulted he had a right to public reparation. His Worship allowing, the case was withdrawn. CIVIL CASES. W. McLeod v. John Mee Claim £G Gs 6d. —Judgment for plaintiff, less £4 paid since service of summons. C. Storey v. Geo. Neville Claim £1 10a Gd, livery charges.—Judgment by default for amount claimed and cases. W. McLeod v. Mrs Hay 'Claim £4 Is 9d.—This was a case of disputed accounts, defendant claiming that she should have received credit for more cash paid than appeared iu the statement. After careful examination of the accounts judgment was given for £2 Is 9d and costs. J. F. Douglas v. James Patrick—Claim £6 2s Id. Mr Raymond for plaintiff', and MiHay for defendant. This was a claim for damages incurred through the defendant not allowing plaintiff to finish certain threshing. Plaintiff had threshed a certain portion of defendant's crop, and it was agreed that he should finish the same at a later date. In place of this the balance of the threshing was given to another man, and plaintiff based his claim upon the profit that he would have made.

Mr Raymond called J. F. Douglas, threshing-mill owner, at Temuka ; Arranged with defendant to thresh his. crop. A portion was to be

threshed out of the stook. The price of the lot was to be 2£d per bushel. All in stook, some 1300 bushels, was threshed in February. The balance was to be threshed after he had finished some for Mr Orbell. He went back in May, and threshed 1018 bushels of wheat and oats, and two stacks were left. After finishing the 1018 bushels defendant said he should like the oats left until the spring. He gave plaintiff to understand that there would be 1000 bushels in the two stacks. About six weeks afterwards he asked plaintiff when he was coming up. Witness said he would go when he went to Connelly's in November, and after two visits saw defendant, who said he had not the sacks nor coals. Told witness he would let him know. Saw sacks and coals in a dray. Sherratt's machine was in three days afterwards. Calculated his damages as follows : There were 814 bushels at 2£d (£8 9s 7d); had to pay 8 men at 8s per 1000 bushels; 2 bags of coals at 3s a bag, and oil. The balance would be profit. It was simpler to thresh oats than wheat. Would not have threshed wheat only at less than 3d. Knew of no reason why he was not to get the threshing. By Mr Hay : Threshing was a fairly profitable game in some cases. Had threshed about 65,000 bushels that year. Did not make the profit Mr Hay alleged, but had several sons working for him, and also a self-feeder on his machine. Reckoned this in his profits. Had not allowed wages for them nor for himself. The worth of hiring a plant was about 30s a thousand. Had not allowed for wear and tear. One of Patrick's sons told him he thought Sherratt was to get the threshing of the two stacks. The son did not lead him to understand he (witness) was not to get the oats. Would not have threshed the wheat at less than 20s an hour if it were not for the prospect of the oats. Agreed to come back for the oats, and would have been back. Had contracts for J. and W. Earl and Connelly, and had others to thresh for in that district. It is a usual thing for farmers to make contracts of the kind mentioned. Did not call upon defendant upon other business and ask for the oats threshing incidentally. By Mr Raymond: Mr Patrick knew witness had work at Connelly's. Mr J. R. Goldsmith was with him at the time. He had been subpoenaed and could not come, as he had met with a severe accident.

By His Worship : He reckoned the average profits on threshing at £4 per thousand, bar accidents. In this instance had not reckoned the wages of himself and two sons as against the profits. John Spillane, laborer :. Was engaged with Mr Douglas's mill threshing Mr Patrick's crop. The latter told witness they were to have the whole of the threshing. He said they might finish when the crop on Orbell's hill was done. Was not in Mr Douglas's employ now. By Mr Hay: Did not stop with the mill'until Orbell's threshing was finished. When witness was at defendant's only one stack was up. By Mr Raymond: Was clear it was understood that Douglas was to have the whole of the threshing. Mr Hay stated that the defence would be that no contract was made with regard to the whole of the crop. The profits on threshing also were nothing like as large as stated by Mr Douglas. At 2£d the profits at the outside could not be more than £2 10s per thousand. He called Noah Sherratt, a threshing machine proprietor: Had threshed two stacks of oats for Mr Patrick. There were 814 bushels. The price was 2£d per bushel. Threshed in November, and was engaged about a month before. There was no greater ease in threshing the two stacks left than there would in the others previously threshed. There were eleven men and a water boy engaged in threshing. The wages would be 15s for driver, 12a for the feeder, 10s for the band-cutter, 9s for ordinary hands, and 4s 6d for the water boy. . The coals used would be about half a ton. The combine would be worth about £1 2s Gd, and the engine about the same. The total cost would be about £8 15s 5d a thousand. At 2£d per bushel the threshing of a thousand would be £lO 8s 4d. The profit would be about £l l2s 1 Id per thousand, perhaps less. By Mr Raymond: His mill was a hired one. It was an old one, but threshed as well as others. Would charge 3d per bushel for wheat alone. Reckoned the wear and tear at 22s 6d per thousand, the price he paid Mr Flatman for hire. Had not allowed Mr Flatman's profit in that. Had only threshed one year. Charles Stickings, threshing machine proprietor : Had three years' experience. Paid 9 men 9s a thousand (£4 Is), feeder 15s a thousand, water boy 20a a week, or about 4s a thousand. The driver would be about 18s a thousand. The wages would be £5 18s 6d. The wear and tear would be worth about 25s a thousand. Repairs to engine would be about 10s a thousand, The coal used would be worth about 14s, and oil about 4s a day. A mill should thresh an average of a thou • sand a day. [ Tl ™ ,»? reckoned by Mr Hay came to £8 lis fed, and **» Profit to £1 16s Hd]. By Mr Raymond : Did not pay" different rates for wheat and oats. He charged 3d for wheat and 2H tov oats, and 2 J d for an all-round lot. By Mr Hay : The cost of a plant would be about £IOOO. If kept in repair it would not last more than about ten years. William Patrick, farmer, living at Gapes's Valley : Plaintiff came to him in February, and witness promised him threshing if Smith & Stickings did not come. Later on gave him some stook threshing. This was the first contract. Nothing was said about any more. The second time plaintiff was thrashing at Mr Orbell's and witness asked him to come and thresh the wheat. He did so, and two stacks of oats also. This was in May. There were two stacks of oats in another paddock. Nothing was said about them. Did not know at the time if he should thresh them or cut them into chaff. The first time he knew about Mr Douglas asking about the oats was in November. He had agroed five weeks before with Sherratt. Mr Douglas oaiue a few days afterwards and brought back some hamos, and said he would come up to-morrow and knock those two stacks out for witness. Witness said he could not, as he had no bags nor coaln. There were none on the place, as stated by plaintiff. Was positive he never gave the two stacks to Mr Douglas to thresh.

By Mr Raymond; Did not tell Mr Douglas Mr Sherratt was coming. Had not told Mr Douglas about Mr Sherratt, but Iris eons had. Had a dispute with Mr Douglas once, but had not said he would refuse him the balance of the threshing on that account. Mr Spillane's evidence was not true. Out of the whole threshing there were seven stacks of wheat. Was satisfied with the machine.

By His Worship : Did not leave plaintiff to suppose he was to come up. Did not tell him straight out, because plaintiff knew Sherratt was to come. John Patrick, son of previous witness : Recollected Douglas coming about some threshing, and asking for his father. He

said "When are you going to thresh?" Said " Sherratt has got the threshing." Douglas said " Father should have given him the first chance of it as he had done the rest." That was all that took place. His brother was with him.

By Mr Raymond: This took place a few days before they threshed. Told his father that Mr Douglas had been up looking after the threshing. Samuel Patrick gave evidence corroborative of that of previous witness. Mr Raymond, upon the subject of profits, called A. W. Gaze, who stated that Ihe mill used by Mr Sherratt was let with an engine for 30s a thousand. His Worship was of opinion, although the evidence was somewhat contradictory, that the plaintiff was engaged for the lot. The claim for damages he considered excessive. The profit was, according to the evidence, about 30s a thousand. Assuming it to be a little more he should allow 30s for the damages with costs. The Court then rose.