RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Temuka Leader, Issue 2513, 8 June 1893, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Temuka — Tuesday, June 10, 1893. [Before C. A. Wray, Esq., R.M.] UNREGISTERED DOGS. N. Longley (1), Peter Looney (1), Conrad Haar (2), Wm. Hide (1), and Charles Miller (1), farmers, at Orari and Rangitata, were charged with having unregistered dogs in cheir possession on a date in May, and the offence having either been admitted or proved by Constable Egan, the registrar, defendants were fined 10s in respect of each dog and costs. Jos. Buck was charged with a similar offence. From the evidence it appeared that defendant had registered four dogs. On the occasion of the constable’s visit he found five dogs, one of which was claimed by Mrs Buck. One dog had been registered that morning. There being some doubt as to the identity of the unregistered dog the case was dismissed, CIVIL CASES. P. Stevenson v. Powell.—Mr Salmond for plaintiff.—Adjourned for a fortnight. E. H. Brewer v. W. Johnson—Claim £s.—Judgment by default for amount claimed, and costs. Swaney v. Mabin—Claim £7 6s lid.— Mr Salmond for plaintiff and Mr Postlethwaite for defendant.—Adjourned for a fortnight on the application of defendant. Cole v. Looney—Claim £l7 15s 3d. Mr Salmond for plaintiff aud Mr Wilson Smith for defendant. The defendant paid into Court £l2 14a 9d. Richard Cole, blacksmith, ressident at Orari, gave evidence as to work done to a trap for defendant. He detailed the various parts of the trap that had to be repaired, and claimed £l6 10s for what was done. Sent iu the account to defendant, who some six months afterwards made a complaint as to the charges. He also repaired a reaper and binder at a cost of 12s 6d. The defendant was cutting some crop for plaintiff when the binder broke, aud it had to be repaired before It could be used again. By Mr Wilson Smith : The trap was not worth anything when it was brought to him. Used some of the old iron, the axle, one of the shafts and part of the wheels. Did not advise Mr Looney not to have it repaired. The springs were also used again. Did not charge for a new shaft in the bill. Supposed it was omitted. The first account rendered was £l6 10s. Could swear to that positively. The account £lB 9s 6d produced was rendered through him. By His Worship: The account £lB 9s 6d was not really. a bill. It was a statement of the items and cost. Made a reduction on the lump sum. Had never asked more than £l6 10s.

By Mr Wilson Smith ; Mr Looney did not object to the bill when first sent in. Had received no account from the defendant for cutting plaintiff’s crop. fey Mr Salmond : The first account was only £l6 10s ? and he only claimed for that.

By His Worship: Was agreeable to knock off the items charged for repairing the binder. Was willing to have allowed a pound for the cutting of his crop. Heury Herbert Heatley, a wheelwright, worked for Mr Coles three years ago, and remembered doing some of the work claimed for, Considered the charges fair and reasonable. Would have expected to get more himself.' Would have sooner made a new cart than bother with it. The springs, axle, and part of the wheels, pae shaft, jmd some ironwork could be ixsed in’repairing the trapBy Mr Smith : When finished it was about £lB. Would have given about 20s for an old trap in the condition in which it was brought to the shop. For a new cart would expect to get about £2l. Mr Coles had the use of the cart for a short time and defendant uaeff plaintiff’g. For the' defence Mr \yjlsqp Smith '-'•■opd

°“rTr , mer. Oran, who said Peter Looney, i»- , . about three years ago he had er-J? J u his place. It was fairly sound, but tne body was out of repair. Took it to Mr Coles, and instructed him to execute certain repairs. The shafts were good when the plaintiff received the trap. Valued the cart in its old state at quite as much as the repairs charged for. Offered £9 in settlement. The first charge made was in July, 1890, for £lB 9s 6d. When repaired the trap was badly balanced. The springs were all right when sent. Witness was examined as to his statement that the account £lB 9s 6d was the first he had received in connection with the trap and was certain it was. Owed very little for other work. Objected to paying because he was charged too much, and too much had been done.

Robert Kennedy, wheelwright, Temuka, recollected looking over a trap of Mr Looney’s which had been brought to him for examination as to the value of the work done The trap would in his opinion have fetched about £ls. Two new shafts would be worth about £l. The axle as it stood would be worth about 15s. The wheels about £7 10s if good. The charge of £4 & for repairs

to wheels did not seem quite correct. There were several items for which the charges were fair, but labor was excessive. To do the work and find material, etc., according to his idea would be worth about £lO 6s. Did not think it proper to do so much to an old trap. Would advise a customer get a new trap. Such a trap would when new be worth about £2O. This concluded the evidence, and after counsel had reviewed the facts His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for £ls 7s 9d and costs, with solicitor’s fee 20s, and costs of one witness Bs. Wm. McLeod v. D. Hoare. The plaintiff stated the defendant brought some laborers to his premises, and said that if they were supplied with stores he would see him (witness) paid. They were booked to Mr Hoare. Did not apply to the men for payment. Originally opened the account with a few small items and took an order on Mr Hoare. Saw Mr Hoare afterwards, who said he would see him paid. Defendant denied all liability. Had never authorised plaintiff to supply any goods to his men. A sou of the defendant also gave evidence, after which plaintiff was nonsuited. prohibition order. A prohibition order was granted in respect of James Roberts, a native, to take effect in the Temuka Licensing District and Arowhenua.