DISTRICT COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 4, Issue 1060, 28 April 1882, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

THIS DAY. • ■ j Before His Honor Judqr Hardoastle. Donald Donald v, E, Meredith, jun. t ' Debt, £l3B 7a (3d. Mr Gray for plaintiff and Mr Chapman for defendant, Messrs Foist (foreman),' Jago, Calfrey, and Rapp, were empanelled as a jury. Mr Gray, in opening the case for the plaintiff explained that the claim arose out of a contract for thrashing the crops of ilie defendant and of another person named Lott, muter which grain was to be delivered to the plaintiff for the services ho rendered. Subsequently the desehdant refused to permit any grain to be given up. Defend,'int never refused to pay plaintiff, but put him off wanting him to wait till next harvest. Donald Donald called, deposed, I am a sheep farmor residing near Masterton. I was the owner of a threshing machine ill the Whiirema. Two years ago Mr E. Meredith had there, My machine was the only one in the district, I know Mr George [Lett in the Whareama, he had crops also I romembor a conversation oi: Fob. 1880 with defendant as to the rate for threshing his and Lett's grain, I agroed to thresh for brttli of them, De ; fondant lintl a lien over Lett's grain. I told defendant I was prepared to thresh both craps at fh epence per bushel. Lett's crops were on Mr Meredith's property at Wairon»a. Defendant agreed .to the price I named. My machine was at tho time on my property at Waikaraka I threshed the crops as soon as they were ready. I saw Lett shortly after I spoke to defendant I did not see defendant again till after the crops were threshed, when I asked him' why he did not allow the grain to be removed and defendant said it was not his iault. He communicated with Johnston & Co. on the subject, and they had refused to allow the grain to be removed. I remonstrated with him on the breach of arraugeinent, but ho still persisted in not letting the grain go, He said ho did net think there would be sufficient grain to cover the advances he had made io Let* & 00. I asked him to let me have sufficient for seed purposes, as it would cost almost double to get it from Wellington. He replied that Johnston & Oo would not allow him to part with a bushel of it. On subsequent occasions I repeated my request, and was again and again refused. I made a demand for payment in grain, but not, I believe, for payment in money. I helieve I corresponded with defendant on 'he question. The letter produced was from defendant declining to pay, in reply to a letter which I sent, Mr Chapman put in a letter, and asked if it was tho one referred to. Witness said it was a letter written by him, but not the one referred to The letter commenced—" Dear Edwin," and asked defendant to reconsider the matter about Lett's crops. He had written previously to defendant, ■ In answer to Mr Chapman, witness said that the defendant agreod to his proposal to .thresh at fivcpence a bushel. The acreage was not specified. The arrangement for payment was made afterwards. He could not say whether he rendered an accountof threshingtoLett or Meredith, Ho bolieved that the account was made out to Lett's account to distinguish it from defendant's grain. Ho bad not brought his books. His man Reid renderod the accounts. He demanded'payment of Lett by asking for the grain, Ho never demanded payment from Lett in money. Ho asked Geoiyo Lott for on acknowledgement of the accounts as io I he correctness of tho figures. Lett gave him a document in the form of a promissory note. The consideration for the promissory nolo was for threshing the grain and other services, He did not think that he gave Lett a receipt for the rote. Ho thought the date of the note was after January 3, 1881. He might have charged interest for it. Tho receipt produced was one which ho gave to Lett. Ho did not anticipate that Lett would bp able to pay the amount, 'He looked upon Lett as primarily liable, but lie relied upon defendant for tho money as the person ho would ultimately have to look to He considered that defendant was making himself responsible in tho first instance by consenting to his being paid out of the cross. Ho considered defend ;n' pirn teed Lett's debt if Lett.refused to pay. In answer to Mr Gray: Witness mcroly took the prom ssory note as an acknowledgment of tho account. He felt certain that Lett would not pay. Ho novor anplied to Lett for payment. In answer to tho Court, witness said he had no guarantee from defendant in writing. He made a bargain with him for Lett's grain as woll as for his own. Ho got paid for tho grain grown by defendant in a contra account for shipping charges, Nothing was said at tho original iutevview about tho manner of payment. I George Lett was then called by the counsel for the plaintiff but did not appear. Thomas "Wagg was then called and did not answer,to his name. Peter Reid was summoned with a similar result. The Court: Have these witnesses been duly summoned ? Mr Gray: They are not subpmnned, but they were in attendance a few minutes ago, , After a brief search they were discovered, George Lett, called, said: Ho was a contact ploughman, Two years &go he farmed a portion' of defendant's land, who held a lien over his crops, He saw defendant about tho threshing. He told Mr Meredith that Mr Donald said tlmt a certain amount of wheat was to bo put by each day for the payment of the threshing of Lett & Co.'s grain, Mr Meredith roplied that it was rather sharp practice. He replied that he did not see it, as tho Company were men of straw, and he did not blame Mr Donald for ■looking out for himself. Mr Meredith 1 I said that though it was sharp practice he supposed they must have it. Mr Mere- j dith took all the grain when it j was threshed except seconds, which were i used as horse food. No grain was put on i one side. Ho told Donald's man that lie j could take his share when the threshing i was completed. He did uot give the 1 grain to Donald because Meredith told i him that tho Company was in his hands, | Tho lien was really raised from Johnston & Co. through Meredith. Meredith i ordered him not to romovo any grain, ' Witness replied that it seemed to be a < dishonorable action after promising the i grain. Meredith thoroughly agreed in j tho first instance for tho grain to be given, ] Meredith replied that ho could'nt help i|, other wheels were pulling against him, and he had to send the grain in to Johnson & Co. Mr Chapman: You suppose he said that? • Witness: I don't suppose. I say what I mean. ' Witness continued; We did not take the grain in, Mr Meredith toolt it in. He told Wagg that Meredith said the grain was not to go He suggested' to Meredith that Donald should take the grain that was nearest to his own pro - perty, The company signed some bills for Mr Donald. He had an honorabe intention of paying but it seemed that they couldn't pay. In answer to Mr Chapman: Tho company held the land on a cropping lease.

The arrangement for the threshing Has left to Mr Meredith, who was landlord and was supposed to be a partner. There was nn other threshing raaohine about, and Mr Donald was sure of getting thfr threshing, He forgot the conversation when the bill was given, Giving a bill might be an important affair if they were likely to pay it, Mr Donald askod for a bill; he did not know Ms reason for asking. All he knew was that the. company owed the money and he wished to pay if ■possible. He got a receipt for the bill. He said he could not remember whether Mr Donald said he wanted the bill for discount purposes. He said at the time that he would renew the bill if he could see his way to do it. He said the company were men of straw and it was madness for them to put their names to it, Mr Donald expected them from their next crops off the land to be able to pay tho bill. In answer to the Court; He considered that the company was liable for the contract made by Mr Meredith, No other member of the company, made any agreement with Mr Donald, excepting Mr Meredith, who was a partner in the company,

■ln answer to Mr Gray: Mr Meredith lmd the crops and rendered a statement, bringing them in debt, but this was not his fault,

Thomas Wagg deposed, About two year's ago I was in plaintiff's employment and had charge of his threshiug machine at Waironga. Had threshed crops for Meredith, Lett,, and Donald. Remember conversation with Lett and Meredith. "Mr Lett said Mr Donald was to take grain for the amount of the threshing. Mr Mereditli did not object to this, that day, the next day he gave an order not to allow any grain to go. Had threshed about 11,000 or 12,000 bushels at this time,

Peter Reid deposed, was employed by Mr Wagg in Feb, 1880. Kept books with threshing machine. Kept tally of crops threshed for Lett, Meredith, and Donald. Tho accounts produced; were copied by witness from book kept by him. 2798 bushels wheat and 3844 bnshols of oats were threshed for Lett & Co.

By Mr Chapman.—Kept tally book all (he time the threshing was going on. Took instructions from Mr Wagg. Made out accounts against different parties, and handed them to Mr Wagg by his instructions. Made accounts against G. Lett as manager for Wairontjo station. This closed the case for plaintiff, , and the Court adjourned to 2 o'clock,