MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2651, 26 April 1894, Page 4

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka—Tuesday, April 24th, 1894. [Before C. A. Wray, Esq., S.M.] DRUNKENNESS. An inebriate who had not been before the Court for some years was fined ss. ILLEGALLY ON PREMISES. George Ramsay was charged with being illegally on the premises of Joseph Whitehead. Joseph Whitehead and Constable Egan gave evidence as to accused’s sleeping in a stable belonging to the witness. Accused was cautioned and discharged. CIVIL CASES. J, F. Douglas v. J. W. Miles—Claim £l9 17s 2d. Mr Salmond for defendant. This was a claim for threshing certain crop grown by Mr P. Swaney, over whose effects the defendant holds a bill of sale. Plaintiff alleged that he had been guaranteed payment by Mr Miles, and that he would not have done the work except under guarantee. Defendant had promised payment, and had also accepted an order in favor of Mr Brown for £ls. Plaintiff had received a horse from Mr Swaney as part payment, value £ll. Had not given credit for the amount, as Mr Miles had a bill of sale and expected his acknowledgment of the transaction. Had never applied to Mr Swaney, but always looked to Mr Miles. Had applied to the latter, who had paid a portion and promised to pay the balance. By Mr Salmond; Had not intended to risk receiving payment from Mr Swaney. Had accepted Mr Miles’s word that he would be paid, but subsequently felt inclined to have'a guarantee. The order given to Mr Brown was paid after the second threshing was done. The amount of this threshing was £l6 12a 4d. For the defence it was admitted that a guarantee had been given for the second threshing, £l6 12s 4d, and upon this £ls had been paid, and the balance paid into Court. There was no guarantee, verbal or otherwise, in respect of the first threshing. J. W. Miles gave evidence. Witness held a bill of sale and crop lion over the chattels, etc., of Mr Peter Swaney. The plaintiff had been several times to witness re the threshing, and asked for an order. Witness declined to give one. Had discussed the condition of the crop with plain! iff, and showed him that there was an ample margin for payment of threshing account after witness’s claim was satisfied. In no way guaranteed the account. On March 14th Mr Buxton had called with a message from Mr Douglas stating that as the first crop had not turned out as well as he expected he would not go on without a guarantee. Then gave a guarantee, and subsequently honored an order for £ls, dated the 31st March. By plaintiff: The horse taken was outside the bill of sale. Had never promised to pay £5 on account of threshing. Had promised to get that amount from Mr Swaney if possible. His Worship briefly reviewed the evidence, pointing out that a guarantee must be in writing, and further that plaintiff had already taken a horse in part payment for the first account. Judgment would be for the amount paid into Court. Plaintiff would be non-suited on the first claim. If there was anything over and above realised by the grain doubtless Mr Swaney would pay. Mr Miles said he would be most willing to assist plaintiff in getting paid for the work. The Court then rose.