R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume VII, Issue 1885, 12 January 1885, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MASTERTON.-MONDAY,

Before IT. S. Wahdell, R.M. '•■ DRUNK. An inebriate' was fined in the usual amount for a first offence, .... ■■ ■■ SHEKP PROSECUTION ;.' Inspector Drummond v Hngli Belliss' Information under 23rd section of the Sheep Act, for failing to. clean-sheep within six months of> previous conviction, Mr Bunny for plaintiff/ Mr Beard appeared for the defendant and applied for an adjournment. This was opposed by Mr Bunny on the ground that defendant' had-received plenty of notice, .Adjournment granted till 26th inst. Beard & Gray vE, y, Qiiqn.—Claim £sl9s, Judgment for amount and costs. 7s 2d,

Rapp & Hare v Arthur. Harford.—■ Claim £Bl2s for goods sold and delivered. Judgment for amount and 10s costs. . Rapp & Hare v Charles HalJard.T; Claim £llss 7d; Judgment for .amount; ahd'eosts 20s, •'"."..'.' William Riddle v Michael Doolanj-tr-Claim' £l2 Bs. Judgment foramount'atid costs £l4. Keester & Harding v E. Bezaf.-Debt £1 4s. Judgment for amount and costs lfis, James Kennedy y J, Alpaas,—Claim £4lßs 24 balanpe of bushrfallmg contract, 38 acres at 255. Plaintiff with Thos Phelps in July last" entered into a verbal agreement with Mr Alpass to fall oertain bush at 30s an. acre, Defendant said thore was about 70 acres, but he did not think they could fall it.intime. He however told them to go to work and wiro in and get all down they could by the Ist of November. They commenced'thejob on the. Bth of July. Defendant pointed out where they were to start from; and the direction they were to take in falling, which they followed up to the 31st of October. .From time"to time theysaw Mr Alpass who knew what they were falling.. On the 28th October he informed Mr Alpass that the bush was' done and • asked him tq come up and measure the work. .He came up on fl}? .flfilt (toy. but returned without speaking'to them, He saw: Alpaes again on the 30thwhile lie-was mustering sheep, and he (witness), asked him if the line would suit him, and he .said it .would but they would have to fall another pieco or he would not pay them. Witness said they had no rations, and it would not pay them to do it as they had to pack rations from Whareama over a rough and wet road. He and'his mate had measured the bush and found it' thirfcy'ejght acres. They had received in cash on cqnjract £}s Is. 10d.. The con'tract amounted' tq £s7', and.'they sued, for the balance, £4lßs 2d, \, ■

Cross-examined by, Mr Alpass, the defendant; Witness said lie considered himself and Phelps the only contractors for the job, Trap.had nothing to do with the contract. He was working with fhem and would get his share of the money. [Charles Trap's.; name was added'to the names of the plaintiffs.] Two' flags were given them, but one of ,them.theycould not see." He did hot remember defend ant taking them to the flags. He con"Sidered the wor| finished' in a workmani/Defeiidajit gave ;them permission to ]eaye.three or four trees a#r+6-s)naJl on'?»..W ;.'.THfy'B«ir''*h* twofligs, ducted fcoi«Jl'by in & iw« *'two trees, and'they hid' do# so, . He con>: sidered he ileft the'" work' a'-

jworbmanliko manner. [Defendant,, had passed the .work and said hti wis satisfied; He considered the defendant Was satisfied from the words he made use of that, the work was.well done. There were three of them 1 there seventeen weeks falling thirty-oigliUores. (Defendant said tin's was about half a man's work, and set the Court in laupliteri) ' Defendant: Trap was not an experienced man, arid they, had lost a deal of.time in getting stores from Whareama, •and they had also a lotiof wet weather to contend with.";' %,

, By Mr Bunriy: The flags referred to wero not pointed out to Impersonally by the defendant, but ho believed they were pointed out to his mate He asked defendant to point trig, station they were to cut to)|and he ultimately came, but he could not'find it nor the boundary peg. •' i iThomas Phelps deposed that ho was one of the plaintiffs in this case. % Defendant here said his only -two grounds of refusal to pay the money were the unworkmanlike manner of the coi£ tract and the measurement. .He sidered there was eight or ton acres less thari.the amount claimed.

Witness said they had done every tiling they could to get defendant to measure the work. They-had measured it them.selves to the best of their ability. Defendant had never complained of the mode of the carrying out of the contract, Hadjef . about half a dozen trees standing on the .land,,;- ,W.hen the-work 'was completed '. defendant:expressed himself Very'„well ..satisfied .with it... • ,:Witness"measured the' .ground, with a chain. Could not reckon up a/triangle or .a.trupezium. They did Were making wages while they were falling the bush, Half an aore. a week was a man's work with the wet weather, •"'''. ' ; . To Mr.Bunny: On the 3rd of lier defendant refused to measure up the work. . . .'•■ •• ■••• Charles Trap deposed that defendant 1 refused to measure off the bush and'toldthem to clear off the premises, Previously he had expressed himself very well satisfied witn the work. To defendant ;■ Could not say whether defendant ever passed-thp work. Defen* dant never made complaints-as to the way the work was carried.out- There might be one tree left standing or Jesa than that, • (A laugh) He left one manuka standing and one maire.

To the Court: He hadneyer done biishfalling before. .. Defendant; Can you'.roekon up a triangle ? ; '. ' Witness: This isn't a school! The Court: The result of the caso mayprove this to be a school, Defendant: Could you calculate a trapezium? ''■•■"' . ... Witness: I don't know. 'The Court: Do you know how many Bides a trapezium ha? ? .... . Witness: No ! This concluded the case for the plaintiffs.. ." " " , ' ' Defendant, in answer to the Court, said he estimated the bush fallen to bertwentyseven acres.

,The Court suggested that a surveyor, should be s.ent to measure the wprk, anf} that if it was nearer thirtyTeighV 'than' twenty-seven acres' defendant should pay' the cost of the survey, and vice versa. , Tho. defendant, said if judgment was given against him he would appeal. The Court asked if defendant wished to be sworn, to give evidence-for.theiefence. . Defendant: I do not see^'the'good'of this, .■'■■•■"

The Court; Very welj, \ wjlj gjfO'ypV r 'aßEe§} by glyjtig,judgment fpr plaintiff with cost?. r ~'„'.'"•■• Defendant: Do you the wft6le : thirty-eightacres. • '"" ; ' '"'■' '"' vXhe?,Courf: I have no alternative;' there is no evidence against it. . .Defendant: Then 1 had better takean adjournment.and get evidence.. : ./,?.}■ .. Th& Court :. You had.yourdiQice-.ii! >i,^,,- O $ M ;• ;c -... ncttipe of appeal."' . ■;.Samuel 'v Ramsay.—Olajm |4 lis.:.' Mr Beard for plaintiff-aMd;Bs;. . ."";".;': /'■'.'. '' -Mrs Turkington, wife of plaintilpaidMrs Ramsay asked her to takq her child as a boarder until.she oould get her a place' "to stay, at--Whilst attending school. She never mentioned any terms as to pay. nMt but "said she would pay,' The child was; brought by Mr Dillon and stayed eleven weeks, She .sent an .account to. Mrs Ramsay for the' child and she said she would pay When-she had the .money,', By Mr Skipper; She, knew the child was not Mrs'-'Ramsajfs but•had.a.father living. The'child is_ a sister of .Mrs Ramsay's,-ahU she,thought it would be all right,,,.:. Mrs ■Riirdsay I ,told her after the', child left that- her' father would pay for the child's keep. She had never seen nor applied, to.Mr Ramsay for the money! The account'pa jtade'out to Mrj Ramsay; ■• ""•"" "' "■' ." In answer to Mr Beard witness said that th'a girl had been living at the hotel before she came to the school, and nothing was said about the. father, until after the child Jwd-left..' -.?> ' .'"'.v-'---

•. 'Sa^eLTurtujglon,.theplaintiffinthe' caso, gave o.vidence : ..Bimi|ar to the last 'witness, v - He had ; not.;: Applied to Mr Eamßay for. the.'.'money, Mrs fiamsay having been looked guarcjian of the child by himi.'.'.. .." J. Ba'msay depqfied that he was defendant in this case. He had never authorised them to have any charge of his wife's sister, nor had he ever been applied to Aboard and lodging) and ho never gave his wife permission to Bend her to plaintiff's, .although- he knew she was there, Mr James., the father, waß now in Oastlepoint, and the girl was under his dare,*'

Judgment for plaintiff, and costs, Si. ■His cautioned the plaintiff in future against. making a contract with a married woman,

R, S. Hawkins v John Vile. MrJßuriny for plaintiff and Mr Beard for. defendant. Plaintiff claimed to.recoverlhe Bum of "£73 Is Id, half cost 'of the .dividing fence on the Upper Taueru between the properties of the jplaihtiff and defendant. ■'• ; - Left Sitting.