DISTRICT COURT.

Tuapeka Times, Volume I, Issue 10, 18 April 1868, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

(Before his Honor Mr. Justice Grey.) Wednesday, 15th April. j Waxker v. Holmes. — Plaintiff's ac- j count, £26 Bs. ; defendant's account, i £28 7s. Mr. H. C. Richards appeared for plaintiff ; Mr. J. L. S. Keen for defendant. This was a case in which defendant admitted the whole of the amount claimed by plaintiff ; but plaintiff disputed certain items in defendant's account. One for horse hire he (defendant) disputed altogether ; another for ploughing lie considered exorbitant. Mr. Richards said he would confine himself to those items. In reply to Mr. Keen, Mr. Richards admitted that the work referred to in the account was done. Lawrence C. Holmes was sworn, and by referring to his diary, stated that in November, 1866, he was occupied ploughing for Mr. Walker three-fourths of a day, for which he charged 225. 6d., as the common rate of wages. The groxind was hard to work in some places. The other item, £1 10s., was for two mares ploughing one day. With reference to the items for ; horse hire, he said that he hired his horse t Tommy to Mr. Walker at the time he j commenced his pug mill. The horse was doing nothing, and he thought it would suit Mr. Walker's work. There was nothing said about terms at the timn ; but some time afterwards, when Mr. Walker was in witness' house, he told him that he

. w^wld make the usual charge. He spoke feMr. Walker about buying the horse. He continued to use the horse after he told him that. The charge was, for seventeen weeks, at 20s. per week, lie believed that was the usual charge for a horse. On the sth of February, 1868, he gave Mr. Walker the account. He looked over it, and said he would have either all the money or none. Since then he had no communication with Mr. Walker whatever. Cross-examined by Mr. Richards— He was uncertain of the extent of the ground ploughed. He left off work about four o'clock. With reference to the item, January 24, 1867, £1 10s., for two mares' ploughing— could not remember for certain whether he followed the plough, but to the best of his recollection he did. If he had not attended to it himself, he would not have charged 30s. He did not remember Mr. Walker presenting the account and demanding the amount on the 24th July, and again on the 25th September. Mr. Walker never pressed him for the amount. Never begged that Mr. Walker would not press him for it. Did not tell Mr. Walker that he would prefer him using the horse to its running on the ranges. He decidedly never agreed with Mr. Walker to give the horse as security if he would not press him for the amount. Witness had not the horse in his possession from the time he had first given it to Mr. Walker up to the 7th October last. T. Darton, sworn, deposed — Knew the horse Tommy. He thought 10s. a week sufficient for him — 20s. a week he thought too much. Should neither like to charge nor pay that sum. Tommy was offered to him for £12 10. Did not consider it a bargain at that sum. It was unable to stand hard work— very willing, but very lame. Adam Mitchell, sworn — Known Tommy j eighteen months. Not that lame, but he could work well enough. Very good horse. To-day, ut thrashing mill, got through his work better than two other horses at the same work did. George Walker, sworn — Presented his. account on the 26th September for lignite, &c, and also two months prior to that about the 23rd of July, 1867. It amounted to L 22 7s. 6d. Air. Holmes said he was very poor, but would try to pay it in a month. Told defendant that he (plaintiff) must have the money as he required it to purchase a horse. Asked defendant if he wished to sell any of his horses. At first he replied "Yes," but afterwards he said " No ; I will require it during the summer." He afterwards suggested that if he (plaintiff) would not press him for the money, he might take the lame horse to work the pug mill, if it would do. He told defendant that he must understand that he did not intend to hire a horse. Defendant replied that he never thought of such a tiling as charging a shilling for the horse. He told defendant that he would require' the horse on the following Monday. From that time, witness took the horse, and kept it in his possession until plaintiff sent for it for liia own use. Defendant had got the horse on three or four occasions. He was put to inconvenience through defendant sending a man to take the horse away. On enquiring after it, defendant said he wanted the horse for his own use. He went three times to defendant before he got a note of his account. When he called the third time, he first heard that defendant intended charging for horse hire. When he presented defendant with the account, he said, " Mr. Holmes, I took the horse to oblige you ; and is this the way you serve me for it ? " He told defendant he would dispute that part of the account. Cross-examined by Mr. Keen —He would rather have had the money than the horse. Did not wish to keep the horse two weeks if defendant could have paid the account. The horse was not worked above half the time. Witness once hired a horse, and paid 15s. a week for it ; but it could do double the work of defendants horse. He could use it for two jobs. He had the horse as security for the debt. 6. B. King, sworn— Did not remember when he was employed by Mr. Holmes fetching the horse away from Mr. Walker's without his (Mr. Walker's) permission. W. G. Anderson— Mr, Bolton hadthe use of Tommy on Boxing Day. Mr. Walker attended the plough on the second occasion referred to. He recollected the circumstances well, as he had told Mr. Walker that he had made a bad job of it. Mr. Roberts, farmer— The amount charged for ploughing is from £2 to £2 10s. per acre. Mr. Richards recalled Mr. Walker, who said that he attended the plough on the occasion referred to. Defendant ploughed about an hour that day. His Honor summed up the case, and gave a verdict for plaintiff. He could not allow anything for the hiring of the horse. The ploughing was not worth disputing. Mr. Holmes' account would therefore stand thus, £11 ; being a balance due Mr. Walker of £15 Bs. Mr. Keen asked his Honor to make no costs. Mr. Richards intimated to Ms Honor 1 that his client had been put to the expense of subpoening four witnesses in addition to the costs of Court, and he trusted his Honor would take that into consideration. His Honor said he would charge los. costs.