MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2699, 16 August 1894, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

August 1894 [Before C. A. Wray, Esq., S.M.J ALLEGED OFFENSIVE AOT, Alexander Webster was charged with unlawfully behaving in an offensive manner on a football ground at Winchester, whereby a breach of the peace was occasioned. Mr Hay appeared for the defendantRobert Smith, Junr., gave evidence that he, with other schoolboys, ware playing about the football ground, when the accused interfered, and witness was struck in the eye. Accused also disordered the trousers of some of the boys, and behaved in an offensive manner. Constable Bourke stated that the case was brought more particularly to prevent a constant source of annoyance. rr »v for the defence said that the boy w Willing to « ive »« assurance of better behaviour. The boy now permanent employment, and his conduct doubtless arose through idleness. Constable Boqrhe said that the police would be as pleased as anypno tp see the boy do well. They did not press for » fine, as the payment would devolve on a brother who had as much as possible to do to keep his mother. His Worship lectured the boy sev«raly> pointing out that he was liable for a fjne of £5 or throe months imprisonment. He would merely caution him now, but would

deal aeverely with him if the conduct was repeated, CIVIL CASES. Opie & Son v. John Best Claim £5 19s 4d. Me Stdmond for plaintiffs. Judgment for plaintiffs by default for amount claimed and costs. C. T, Milner v. John Willis—Claim £1 ss. Judgment for plaintiff by default for amount claimed and costs. C. Story v. Hugh Currie—Claim 10s. Judgment for plaintiff by default. THE BRICK CASE. W. Hoare v. J. Whitehead. Judgment was given. His Worship said that he held the plaintiff was entitled to recover on the basis of the former arrangement, viz., 20,000 bricks per kiln. He should not allow anything for stacking, and should deduct from plaintiff’s claim a proportionate amount for the bricks always left in the kiln. Judgment would be for £lO 8s Bd, with coats. M. Scannell v. D. Angland—Claim £19135. The sum of £l2lßs was paid into Court. Mr Baymond for plaintiff, Mr Salmond for defendant. Mr Raymond, in opening the case, said that the case resolved itself into a claim for the threshing of certain grass seed at per hour instead of at per bushel, and called M. Scannell,. machine proprietor, Temuka: In April last was asked to thresh grass seed for defendant. Went to look at it, and advised him not to thresh it, as it was had. Told him it would make good hay. Defendant said he thought grass seed would rise, and requested plaintiff to thresh as reasonably as possible and he would supply two men. The grass had evidently been cut for hay, as it had not been tied. If grass is not tied a lot of the seed gets wasted. Went down and started the machine himself. Angland was there to assist. Went down again several times. No tally was kept of bushels—only of time. It was cnstomaiy to deliver a tally to farmers. After a time rendered his account, and called 'for payment. Defendant then objected to being charged by the hour for the grass seed, and declined to pay. After a little conversation, however, he said he would come and arrange a settlement. About six weeks later he proffered to pay at the rate, of sixpence per bushel. Witness objected, as he did not know the quantity. Defendant said there were 290 bushels. The charge he made was a very reasonable one. He had been paid 255, but the usual charge was about 22s 6d per hour. In this case defendant provided two men. It was palpable to a skilled man that the grass would not be good for threshing. Defendant seemed to think there would be from 800 to 1000 bushels. Had on a previous occasion threshed by the bushel. On that occasion the grass was tied, and a better crop generally. By Mr Salmond : This was the first occasion upon which he had charged Mr Angland at a rate per hour. Mr An gland asked him to look at the crop to ascertain if it was worth threshing. He went partly an expert and partly to see if the crop was accessible. Nothing was then said about a price per bushel. Witness gave details of conversation, and affirmed that nothing was said about price, except that Mr Angland told him to charge what would pay him. Made up the account without making any inquiry as te what number of bushels was threshed. It was customary to bag seed at a particular number of bushels for uniformity. Could have told how many bushels were threshed, but the men only kept a tsUy of tl) time. The driver kept a delivery book, which farmers were asked to sign. When Mr Angland objected to pay by the hour witness advised him to think over it. Had only charged at the rate of I7s6dper hoar on account of the allowance for the men, and also as a concession to the defendant who had asked him to keep the expenses down. P. Chapman, threshing-machine driver, gave evidence that Mr Angland was at the machine nearly all the time. Witness at starting borrowed Mr Angland’s watch to keep time. It was a poor crop as regards seed. Inferred they were on by the hour, and therefore borrowed the watch. Kept no tally of the number of the bushels. Mr Angland spoke about putting some cavings through. Witness said he could if he Uked; it had nothing to do with him. The inference would be that they were on by the hour. William Reid, a threshing-machine hand, engaged as bagman at Mr Soannell’a mill: Kept no tally of the bushels of grass at Mr Angland’s. Mr Angland was about all the time. Could not say if Mr Anglond would have known they were being not tallied. By Mr Salmond: Weighed the bags. Some went five bushels, some bushels. Weighed them at Mr Anglaud’s request, but kept no tally. Did not tell Mr Scannell or Mr Angland the tally. T. Washington, machine owner, gave evidence that it was a general rule to go and look at a crop before threshing. It would not pay to thresh a crop of grass seed at sixpence per bushel that only yielded 292 bushels in 16 hours. Should charge 20s an hour. A grass crop intended to be threshed would be tied. When threshing at per hour no tally would be kept. Bags were often weighed for owner’s convenience. By Mr Salmond: A threshing-machine owner might make a mistake as to the yield, but jt was not likely in this case. Grass seed was usually threshed by the hour. If he had been asked to thresh Mr Augland’s crop should have probably made a bargain. Mr Salmond said the defence was, not that the price was unreasonable, but that it was arranged that the crop be threshed by the bushel. He called Daniel Angland, farmer, Milford, who stated that on previous occasions Mr Scannell had threshed grass seed at sixpence per bushel. Saw him on two occasious about this crop. On the second occasion offered him the old rate. Mr Scannell objected, and said that the crop was not so good as usual, and that he must see the crop. As there was very little ho would have to pay the men by the hour. He came down the following day acompanied by Mr O’Keefe. All three went to the stack, and Mr Scannell sampled it, and asked his reason for leaving it loose. Told him he was advised that the best grass seed in Napier and Gisborne was never tied. After sampling Mr Scannell said that it would just pay. Witness inferred that he meant at the rate of sixpence per bushel. Did not tell Mr Scannell to go on and charge what was reasonable. Mr Scannell did not go to look at the crop to advise witness. Had lent his watch to Mr Chapman ao that he might keep the men’s time who were paid by the hour. Had himself counted the -W threshed, and told the bagman that there were 295 u^ h “ la - who said it was right. Took it that he knew before. After the grass seed was threshed the mschlup lyput to oats. No tally was given him there aa ho knew hjmsplf, having acted as bagmpn and .carrjep. When the account was rendered objected to the charge per hour. Mr Scannell said Witness could not expect him to work for nothing. Witness said that his own men were tnopo apd reminded Mr Scannell

that the price was sixpence per basket Mr Scannell said that it was a loose kind of bargain, but witness could come down and settle. Mr Scanned had suggested a settlement, and witness had tendered the price agreed npon. By Mr Baymond: There were about 26 acres of crop. A fair yield would be 24 bushels per acre. Did not consider this a poor crop. Had cat the crop for grass seed, and did not tie it as it was the most approved principle. Had seen the practice in Gisborne some three yean ago. Witness admitted that he tied the grasa seed threshed by Mr Scannell last year. Witness did not believe grass seed would be lost by raking it up loose. Should have threshed the crop anyway. Mr Scannell’s estimate of the crop was nearer than witnesses. Thought it quite reasonable for Mr Scannell to pay the men by the hour and charge at per bushel. Would not under any circumstance have a mill by the hour. Mr Raymond here attempted to elicit from witness that the charge was a fair one, but had to “ give it up.” Mr Salmond asked witness several questions as to the cost of running a machine, etc., but his estimates were disputed. Witness calculated that there was a margin of profit left at the rate of sixpence per bushel. Ellen Angland gave evidence that she heard Mr Scannell remark that it would just about pay him to thresh. Michael O’Keefe, a farmer, also gave unimportant evidence. His Worship reviewed the evidence. He considered there had been no agfeement, and that it was then necessary to ascertain what was a reasonable price. The price in this instance seemed reasonable, and he should give judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed, £19135, and costs £3lßs, less amount; paid into Court.