R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XIII, Issue 4060, 11 March 1892, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

\ MASTERTON.-THURSDAY, I (Before Co'one! Roberts, E.M.) CIVIL. Tu the case P, Mulcahy v Kean, judgment was given for ill 16s 9d, each party to pay iheir own costs. A PLOUGHING DISPUTE. Messrs Cockburn-Hood and Walker | sued Messrs A., 0., and J. Percy for 1 the recovery of £l9los H a sum I alleged to have been overpaid for the " pishing °f certain land, with i £1 j]s added for jptepest, I Mr JN"I appeared for tj)e plaintiffs . "'^•FflPSllfflrthedpfendgnts,' '""appears the defendants entered i,?.* ttR "I 1 ' e f* merit in writing with the plaintiffs J plough a parcel of land known as No. 2, Wardell's, being a part of the Glondonald estate. The agreement provided that the area to be ploughed should on its completion be ascer* tained and that 17s per acre should then be paid for the work. The ploughing, according to the statoment of claim, was surveyed by Percy 0. Frazi, surveyor, who computed the area to be 142 acres, and the plaintiffs paid to the defendants £l2O, or at the rate of 17s per acre, The land had Binco been surveyed by two competent surveyors, who had ascertained that the cotnputatiun of Mr Frazi was incorrect, the area ploughed being 117 acres Sroods 18 porches,, the amount of payment for which would amount to £IOO 3s 9d, C, E, Cockburn Hood, under examination by Mr Beard, stated that on the computation of Mr Frazi he had paid the Percy Bros. £l2O. He had since bad reason to believe that the area of land ploughed was not as computed, and he therefore had it surveyed by two other surveyors, who discovered that instead of 142 acres, 117 acres 3 roods 18 perches only had been ploughed. By Mr Pownall; He had not brought this action before as h took a considerable time to have the land surveyed. Ho had not taken steps to prosecute Mr Frazi tor making a false representation. He did not think Peroy Bros, had connived with Mr Frazi to make an over-computation. Joseph Barker, employed on Glendonald station, deposed to having seen the ploughing of Percy Bros,, and carefully pegged it out. Duncan M'Laohlan, private surveyor, was the next witness called, Mr Pownall objected to the evidence of ilr M'Lachlan, as it was not proved he was a licensed surveyor, He could not give expert evidence. After somo argument the ' Bench decided to take the evidence '

' for what it was worth, The witness, examined by Mr Beard, stated' that he bud surveyed i the ploughed land and found it to be 112J acres, He had surveyed the i land twice and made it the s.ime both times. Cross-examined by Mr Pownall; It bad taken him a day and a half, assisted by a man, to mako tho survey. He had placed his pegs about half a chain on the ploughed land. By Mr Beard ; The placing of the pegs on the ploughed land did not affect the accuracy of the survey, John King, licensed surveyor, deposed that MrMoLachlan had been working under him for ten years and was a competent surveyor, He had examined the survey of Mr McLacblan and computed the area to be correct, By Mr PownaJl;' He could not sav if the land had been properly sur veyed. ■ ' " ■ By Mr Beard : He had examined Mr Frazi's plan and made the area 125 aorcs, ~ I

Mr Pownall: That is without the surface measurement? •'.>;-. The witness: Yes. Mr Pownall: That makes tbe area 135 acres, or seven acr c -s less than ihat stated by Mr Frasi. Arthur Eawson, licensed surveyor, deposed that ho hnd surveyed tho ploughed land at the request of Mr (.'ockburn-Hood. The survey of Mr Frazi was not a correct one of the plougbed'land, In making his survey witness included all land which had been previously ploughed. In Mr Fraz»'a plan certain hillocks and gullies were shown as being ploughed which had certainly not been ploughed. His survey was almost identical with that of Mr McLachlan, but might have shown the to have beon a lit tie less. Mr McLachlan, re-called, stated that the difference hi his survey and that of Mr Kawaon would bo accounted I for by his having left in a few small gullies, and thus giving tho ploughing the benefit. This was the case for the plaintiffs. . For' tbe defendants Mr Pownall claimed a nonsuit on the grounds that the plaintiffs were estopped from bringing this action under their own agreement. The area bad been ascertained and paid for on the computation of a surveyor appointed by mutual consent. If any action had been taken it should have been against the surveyor. Mr Beard urged that the plaintiffs had a right to claim the refund of the amount overpaid, i His Worship held that it was quite open for the parties to have the land re-surveyed if they had a doubt as to tho area,

Mr Pownall said all he could do under the oircumstances was to put Mr Frazi in the box to prove that his survey was correct ac the time. Percy U. Frazi, licensed and autlio* rised surveyor, deposed that he had surveyed the land at the request of the parties concerned, and had been paid by Messrs Cockbum-Hood'and Walker and Percy Bros, in equal amounts. He' had taken careful measurements, With two assistants it hud taken him two full days to make the survey, He computed the area to Ob 142 acres, He had allowed ten acres as the difference between horizontal and surface measurements, It was impossible for him to make an error, of bwentytfivo acres in his survey, He lwd ken a licensed surveyor for twenty-six years, He considered ten acres should he the difference betweenlhe horizontal and surface measurements,' He had not made a. second suney as he had not. had the time, By Mr Beard: He would swear that the horizontal measurement of the land ploughed by Peroy Bros, was 182 acres'as surveyed by him, He had excluded the large gullies in his survey anjl included the small, He Could not account for the difference betweon his survey and that of Messrs Eawson and McLachlnn, By Mr Pownall: Mr Percy ha,d nothing whatever to do with the computing of the measurements. Alfred Percy, sworn, deposed that the, ]and had been surveyed by mutual agreement between themselves and Hjr Oockbura : Hood. Mr OocHqrnHood took some slight exception to the Burvey, but took no action in the roarer until now. Witness under' stopd thatMr Oockburn-Hood intended takjng action against Mr Frazi. In t!io spcond ploughing yards gf ground had been missed that ho and his brother had ploughed. The pegs of Mr Rawson wero in some plaQeg two or three chains in on the ploughed land, The witness, cross-examined by Mr Beard, could not say whose pegs they were on the gronnd. His Worship reserved his decision in 'he case till next day. On resuming this (Friday) morning, judgment wbb given for the plaintiffs for the full amount, £l9 16s 3d, with costs, FRIDAY. (Befpre Cojone| Bpberts, 8.M.) THE BABBIT AOT. H. R, Elder was charged by Inspac- • Thomas Maokw.y with failing lo destroy tho ra^!' s on bis P r f/^V Mr Beard, who appeareu .r. r tlie defendant, stated that the appeal case had been abandoned. He would now consent to a fine and take what action he might ponsider necessary aJtert wards for the mitigation of the sa,me. The Bench inflicted a fine of £7 and costs, FAIUNffTO pnoyiDE, Wm. Thomas Peacock was charged on the information of Eliza Peacock with failing to .nake proper provision for his wife and family of seven cbiN dim Mr Skipper appeared for the defendant and said his client was quite prepared that an order should be made.- The proceedings had been brought under a misunderstanding. The defendant bad left Mastorton on the 18th of December in search ot work. He had previously been burnt out. He did not take with him the proceeds of a concert given on his behalf, but had left orders for this to be paid to his wife, He had also left £2 in the house, He had obtained work at Hunterville and was quite willing to- contribute 25s a week towards the support of his family. He could not, however, guarantee them a home, He had not

been aware that bis wife and family were destitute. When he heard of it t he sent down to them what he could r afford. Mr Beard, who appeared on behalf of the complainant and the BenevO'* t lent Society, said Mrs Peacock was ' prepared to accept the 25s offered. ' The matter for one Bench to decide _ upon was what guarantee they wero to ' have for payment of the amount, He was aware of the reading of the Act ( on tho subject, aurj he did not think its clauses should be too strictly , imposed as this might prevent the defendant from getting work and thus , place additional hardship upon his ' family. His Worship would see the necessity of some order being made to guide the defendant in his movements. He should be placed under such • control as would enable his movements to be watched. The Benevolent institution appeared to be looked upon by the public as a sort of milch cow, regardless of tho responsibilities which fell upon guardians of families, The Sooietywiahed.it to be known that all who had wives and families were liable for their maintenance, and this liability «oiild not be re* moved unless in cases, of incapacity to work. It was desirable that the public should understand that the Society was for the assistance of those , who could not keep thora'selves, and ' had net been formed for tho purpose ' of taking 'the responsibility ftjoru the , shoulders of. fathers- and husbands. Tho Society did not wish to create ' paupers, but to assist those who were absolutely in a condition of pauperism. Mr Skipper: I quite agree with -i what my learned Weed b«s flaid, I

understand his remarks apply to people in general, Jand not to' this particular case, . Mr Beard : That is entirely so. Mr Skipper said than to compel the defendant to remain in Mnstertonwould bo to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. The defendant had work to go to at Hiinterville. As soon as he' could provide a home for bis family he would Bond for them. Mrs Pcacook had received a considerable sum of money since her husband left Master* ton. The defendant stated that since he-heard his family had made application to the Benevolent Society he had sent them £2 10s. Mr Skipper said about £lB had been received by Mrs Peacock since her husband left. Mr Beard: This sum was not pro* vided by. the defendant. Jt was subscribed by the public after the tire, and went in the direction of purchasing furniture. Tho Benoh fully agreed with the remarks of Mr Beard. It could not see, however, how it was to bind the defendant down to live in a certain place, The defendant could be com* polled to find sureties, but it was not desirable that he should be imprisoned. Mr Beard consented to an order for the 25s beinj made. The Bench then made an order that the defendant pay 25s a week to the Clerk of the- Court at Masterton, the payments to be made fortnightly. It pointed out at the same time that it had power to vary the order, and it would expect the defendant to make better provision than this for his family. He would either have to find a home for his family or contributo more towards their keep. ~ SUPPORT OP A RELATIVE. ; Henry Alderrlade was summoned to show cause why he should not contribute towards the maintenance of Elizabeth Alderslade, a near relative. The defendant stated that he was willing to contribute towards the support of his mother when he was at work. He did not, however, always have work. The Court: What can you pay! . The defendant: Five shillings a week when in work. The Court: There is plenty of work for those who are willing to do it. The defendant; I will pay when I have the money. The Court: You are ordered to pay five shillings a week. If this is nut done you are liable to imprisonment, SHOOTING OUT OF SEASON, Emil Basmu6Ben was charged by Constable J. G. Jiay with having in his possession two grey ducki. The defendant pleaded not guilty. Constable May deposed that he was at Aknra on Sunday, Maroh 6th, He heard the reports of a gun and saw a trap at Holmes' gate, He afterwards saw the defendant come out of tho swamp with his gun in one hand and two ducks in the other, He placed the ducks in the trap, Witness then took possession of the ducks and told the defendant it was too bad to shoot them out'of season, The defendant said all that the Con. stable had said was, true. Ho had not, however, as the paper said, been found with a bag full of ganu He had seen twour - three hundred ducks fly across the swamp and he could not resist the temptation of having a, shot. In fact: he heard the Constable, or somobody who was near by, eay, '"I wish I had a gun." He was sorry for what he had done,

The Bench pointed out that ike penalty for this offence was £2O. As it was the first offence, however, the penalty would be a lisjhtoue. The defendant would be fined 10s and costs 10s.