RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2612, 25 January 1894, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Geealmne— Tuesday, January 23. [Before C. A. Wray, Esq., R.M., aud Messrs H. M. Mooro and, W. M. Moore, J.P.s.] OATTLE. Far allowing cattle to wander at large the following wore each fined ss, without costs:—F. W. Worner, Edward O'Brien, and M. Burridgo. CIVIL CASKS. It. H. Pearpoint v. William KeenClaim £2 Vds 9d, goods[Bupplied.—Judgment for amount claimed, with costs. Richard Coles v. Edward Tavoner— Claim 17s Hi, for loan of grubber, repairs to sumo, and bolts supplied. Richard Colea deposed that he lent defendant a grubbpr, aud the latter kept it for a long time, and when roturned the grubber was worn aud neodod repair. The claim was thus : Os for loan of grubber, 10s for repairs, and 2s Gd for bolt 3. Plaintiff did not mention terms to defendant because the latter had hired . tho grubber on other occasions. Plaintiff's price was 5a per day for uso of the ' grubber. i To defendant: Cannot toll what I charged you. fia day ia my charge. I sold tho yrubber to Elleiy, aud sent him, to yuu, fur it. \Ytwa you, gut tho j

machine it was in thorough repair. The arrangement was that you were to return the grubber when done with it. William Ellery : Bought the grubber from Coles about two years ago, and went to Tavener's paddock for it. The agreement with Coles was that witness should have the machine handed over to him in thorough repair, and when'he got it from Tavener it was out of repair. When letting the grubber out witness charged 2s 6d per day, which sum he always paid when borrowing one. To defendant: 2s 6d is a reasonable price. I had a bill from Coles charging me with repairs to the grubber, but I did not pay it. Have had the grubber lying about for some time. Robert Aitken: Heard plaintiff ask witness re paying for use of grubber. Defendant said he would not pay for it, ad other people besides him had used the , grubber. Edward Tavener, defendant|: Borrowed Coles' grubber to do five or six acres of land. Used the grubber one day only, when someone came and took it away, and defendant did not know it was gone till he went to use it again. The grubber was in defendant's paddock for about two weeks. Ellery then got it to grub turnips. Plaintiff had charged him for dressing the grubber, when the grubber was Ellery's when it was dressed. The machine was in bad order when defendant first got it from Coles. The bench thought that if defendant ■ > let out a machine on hire he could not charge the borrower for repairs. Judgment would, therefore, be for plaintiff for 7s 6d, with costs —ss for hire and 2s 6d for bolts supplied. Michael Connolly v. Frank Godwin — Claim £2 15s 6d, balance on a judgment summons against defendant, who was not present. An order was made for payment of the amount claimed; in default seven days' imprisonment. George Ward v. Charles Trengrove — Claim £llos, six weeks' rent for cottage. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed with costs. The court then rose.