P. M. COURT, DARGAVILLE.

Wairoa Bell, Volume V, Issue 175, 9 December 1892, Page 3

P. M. COURT, DARGAVILLE.

Tuesday. (Before H. W. Bishop, Esq., R. M). J. Torrington v. T. Wells, claim £3 14s 6d. Judgment for plaintiff, by default, with costs £1 0s fid. W. Pullan v. Smith and Sheehan, claim £lO. Mr McLeod for plaintiff.— Adjourned,

Broivn, Campbell & Co v. E. M. Rope, claim £6 17s 7d.—Adjourned. F. <l. Dargaville v. W. Anderson, claim £1 5s sd. Mr McLeod for plaintiff. Amount confessed.—Judgment given for amount claimed with 3s costs. James Trounsonv. J. Boyle, claim £9 14s 6d. Mr McLeod for plaintiff.—Adjourned. F. J. Dargaville v. Pouritanga and Wiremu Te Hau, claim £29 11s 4d. Mr McLeod for plaintiff.—Judgment for plaintiff by default. J. J. Weathers v. J. M. Dargaville, claim £lO 10s. Mr E. C. Beale for plaintiff; Mr McLeod for defendant. J. J. Weathers stated his claim to be for ploughing and harrowing a piece of land for defendant. Messrs T. Bassett and H. J. Clarice also gave evidence for the prosecution, their testimony being as to the value of the work done by plaintiff. Mr McLeod said the case was a clear case of imposition and called the defendant, J. M. Dargaville who said that he had gone over the ground wiih plaintiff in company with Mr Moros. Plaintiff agreed to plough the ground for 30s an acre and an allowance of £1 each way for bringing his gear up from Aratapu and returning. He never at any time offered to give more than 30s an acre. Cross-examined by Mr Beale.—There never was any price fixed for the piece known as the ploughed land. He did not think plaintiff would put in such a claim. He afterwards found that he could have got it done for 15s an acre ty a Maori. Nicolas Moros remembered going over the football ground with plaintiff and defendant. The plaintiff agreed to plough the football ground for 30s an acre and £1 for coming up and the same for going back. Judgment was given for the amount paid into Court by defendant, the plaintiff to pay costs 265. Brown Campbell & Co. v. Fowler, claim £3 12s sd. Mr McLeod for plaintiff. Defendant pleaded not indebted as the account was against three men working together. He never received the goods, nor gave the order for them. To Mr McLeod.—Yes, he ate his share of them. His Worship held that when men ordered goods as a company each one was legally liable for the full amount till it was paid. It would be for defendant to recover from each of the others their share of the account. Judgment for plaintiff ; execution to be stayed for one month to allow defendant time to recover from the others interested. Costs 6s. Ross and McLeod v. W. Pullan, claim £2l. Mr Beale for plaintiffs; Mr McLeod for defendant. IF. Pullan, the defendant, remembered receiving a telegram signed Ross and McLeod asking whether plaintiffs should drive some cattle up from Pouto for him. He replied by wire : “ Bring cattle, pay well according to class.” He did not engage plaintiffs to muster cattle. They had the cattle and only asked whether they should drive them up. The driving took them about five hours and he gave them £2, which he considered good value. He had never had cattle brought in by contract, he kept stockmen of his own and paid weekly wages with an extra 10s per head for any unbranded bull of eighteen months or tw 7 o years growth they brought in. Plaintiffs brought him thirty hf ad of cattle, all calves but one and their work was of little or no use to him. He turned all out again. McLeod accepted the two pouuds and seemed satisfied. He said he had told Ross that the cattle were not a good class and the driving would not be worth much. Ross did not say a word when McLeod took the money. A. E. Harding saw eight of the cattle referred to ; they were perfectly tame. If the cattle were wanted it would be worth five shillings per head to have them brought up from Pouto. To drive thirty together 2s per head should be enough. With such cattle there would be no mustering, it would only be necessary to go on the run and drive them off. Neither of the plaintiffs put in an appearance and this closed the case. His Worship said there seemed to have been an attempt at gross extortion in putting in a claim of 12s 6d per head. Judgment would be for defendant with £2 5s costs.