Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Friday, May 14.

(Before Mr. F. Guinness, R.M.) STRAYED cattle. Several parties were fined for allowing cattle to wander at large. absconders. Two lads, who had run away from the Burnham school, and who had been arrested at Chertsey on asking the stationmaster to give them a lift, were ordered to be sent back to the school. CAVIL CASES. Passmore v. Johnson.—Mr. Purnell applied to have the summons enlarged for three weeks to allow the summons to be served at defendant’s last place of abode, it being understood that he had left the district. Application granted. Mcßae v. Bates.—The same request was granted in this ease as in the last, on the application of Mr. Ireland, the time being limited to one week. A CLAIM FOR WAGES. Lloyd v. Hugo Friedlander.—Claim, Ll 5, for wages. Mr. Ireland for plaintiff, Mr. Purnell for defendant. This was a claim for L 1.5 for work performed on the property of James Gardiner. Friedlander Bros, had a lien over the crop, and at the time when Gardner filed his schedule, the men on the farm, including the plaintiff struck work,and did not return to it, until Hugo Friedlander went out and guaranteed that they would bo paid if they returned to their work. From the evidence it was shown that the plaintiff had received sums of money from Gardiner, and at the time the defendant made the promise Lloyd was not present. Mr. Friedlander admitted having given the guarantee, but the sums of, money which he had given to Gardiner for the purpose of paying the men, completely covered all that he had promised. Mr. Purnell submitted that Lloyd was endeavoring to get the money out of the plaintiff, in consequence of there being no chance of getting it from Gardiner, who had filed in the Bankruptcy Court. Mr. Ireland argued that Mr. Friedlander had made a promise to pay whatever wages were required to get in the harvest, and submitted that as his client was then employed on the firm, he had a claim on the defendant. It was a case of great hardship to Lloyd who had worked for such a length of time, the benefit of which had been reaped by the defendant. His Wornonsuited the plaintiff, on the ground that Friedlander Bros, should have been sued instead of the defendant singly. Mr. Ireland hoped 'that costs would not be granted, as his client was in a very impecunious state. Mr. Purnell pressed for costs, as these sorts of claims on business ipen in Ashburton were continually being made without the slightest ground for them whatever. His Worship granted LI Is. costs.

AN INDUSTRIOUS BAILIFF.

Meehan v. Friedlander Bros.—Claim, L 79 10s. Mr. O’Reilly for plaintiff; Mr. Purnell for defendant. The plaintiff claimed the amount for services rendered as bailiff for the term of one year and one week. It appeared that the plaintiff’s brother was in partnership with a man named Thomas Nolan, over whose property the defendants’ held a bill of sale. Twelve months ago Meehan and Nolan getting embarrassed in their affairs, had asked Friedlander Bros., as a favor, to allow them to place the plaintiff on the premises as bailiff, so as to secure them from the annoyance of executing creditors. The defendant offered no objection to this proposal, and thought nothing more of the matter till last week, when the plaintiff demanded the amount for services rendered as bailiff for the last twelve months. The plaintiff, on being examined, admitted to having been employed on the farm during the whole term, and had received from his brother L2O. He had a conversation with Nolan a week or two since, and had told Nolan that if he did not give him any money, he should apply to Friedlander Bros, for the amount. In reply to the Bench, plaintiff stated that he was not employed to do any work, but expected to get 235. a week for acting as bailiff. However, he had been working on the farm for the last twelve months, but did not look for payment on that account. His Worship dismissed the case with costs.

At the later stage Mr. O’Reilly applied to have the judgment altered to a nonsuit, but Mr. Purnell objected, and next Court day was fixed for hearing argument. WHO IS LIABLE ? Nelson v. Stalker and Johnson.' —Claim L 7 45., for tieing wheat. Mr. O’Reilly appeared for plaintiff, Mr. Ireland for defendant Stalker, and Mr. Purnell for Johnson.

Peter Nelson, laborer said the amount of L 7 4s was due between the defendants to him for tieing grain. Stalker had promised him Bs. per acre for tying, and previous to that promise having been made, Johnson, acting for Stalker, had made a similar promise. Had tied 18 acres and had asked Stalker for the money, who referred him to Johnson who said Stalker had to pay. Between them no payment had yet been made. The grain was Stalker’s.

By Mr. Ireland—Stalker engaged me to do the tieing. Johnson was ploughing for Stalker, and he only brought me Stalker’s message. I understood I was working for Stalker. At this stage the name of Johnson was dropped from the case, it having been ascertained that no. partnership existed between him and Stalker, and that he was only working for him. Mr. Purnell here asked for Johnson’s expenses, and the expenses of one witness, but the Court would only allow costs to Johnson, the witness not having been subpsenaed. William Stalker, sworn, said—l am a defendant in this case. Plaintiff did the work for which he claims. Johnson had the loan of a reaping machine from me, on condition that he bound 18 acres of wheat for me. He never was in partnership with me, and he never had authority to engage Nelson for me. I understood Nelson was working out payment for Johnson’s loan of the reaping machine, and that he was Johnson’s servant. Johnson was never in my service beyond doing a bit of contract for me in February. The 18 acres tied were mine, and I certainly had the benefit of Nelson’s work, but I did not engage him to do it. His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff with costs. ROAD RaTES. Longbeach Road Board v. David Evans. Judgment for two years rates. L 3 10s. AN IMPOUNDING CASE. Tooth v. Ruddick.—Claim LlO, damages for illegal impounding of sheep. Mr. Purnell appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. O’Reilly for defendant. L. E. Corsbie, manager for Mr. Tooth, knew the land occupied by defendant, which adjoins Mr. Tooth’s run, and is partially fenced, A portion of the land has no fence whatever, and there is one part which has only a three-wire fence— His Worship—Land which is not completely fenced is unfenced. If a six-feet wall ran round the ground, and a yard of it were broken down, the land in the eye of the law would be equivalent to being unfenced. Witness resumed—Remember some sheep of ours being taken in charge by Ruddick. Sent a shepherd named Williams for them, but they were refused to him. A second time he was sent and they were refused. Heard the sheep were in pound, and sent for them. Paid the fees and got them out. The fees amounted to L 3 14s. Id. There was no notice of the impounding given at the homestead,

though a fee is charged for such notice. It is 16 miles from Ruddick’s place to the pound, and the sheep to get to the pound would have to be driven through the river. They would suffer injury from travelling over the country without a dog to keep them together. The sheep were taken by Ruddick on the sth April, and we recovered them on the 13th.

By Mr. O’Reilly—l am not competent to draw a map of the land in this box. But I have gone over the land, and have measured the fences. The best fence is a six-wire, the lowest wire being inches from the ground. No part of the land has a “ legal fence” upon it. The poundkeeper having given evidence, and explained that the reason why no notice had been given at the homestead was because nobody was at home when the messenger went, the shepherd, Williams, swore to being twice refused the sheep by Ruddick’s wife, unless they were paid for ; also to bringing 22 sheep from the pound, for which he paid L 3 odd fees. Robinson Ruddick, sworn—l am a farmer at the Ashburton Forks, and have the right of some land there. The land in no way adjoins Tisch’s, which is not fenced at the river, nor where it adjoins Tisch’s land, part of which I hold. I put up a banked fence in the spring, and the sheep of plaintiff broke through it. I have repeatedly given up to Mr. Crosbie sheep I had impounded, and never kept them when I knew they were being looked after. But when the harvest came on the shepherd was taken away to look after a machine, and the sheep were allowed to go where they would. The shepherd was half his time in the Spread Eagle Hotel. There is only 50 chains of fence round the whole of Tooth’s land. Mr. Gorsbie himself confesses that no fence will keep out longwoolled sheep. I have not measured any of the fences, and cannot say whether they are “legal fences” according to the ordinance ; but they are better than the average. I gave up keeping the bank in order when I found that it was continually being knocked down. I gave Williams, the shepherd, written notice about 13 sheep an hour or so after the sheep were taken. Could not say whether the sheep were taken on a week-day or a Sunday. The fences would keep out anything but Mr. Corsbie’a sheep. Williams re-called—Never got a written, notice from Ruddick about the sheep, and what he says on that subject is false. I have not been drunk. I never fell off my horse drunk.

Mr. Corsbie—On the Sunday Ruddick says he gave Williams the notice about the sheep Williams was mustering, and he came came home quite sober. Ruddick could not have seen him that night. After counsel had addressed the Bench, his Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for L 5 and costs. The Court then adjourned.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AG18800515.2.9

Bibliographic details

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT., Ashburton Guardian, Volume 1, Issue 100, 15 May 1880

Word Count
1,737

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Ashburton Guardian, Volume 1, Issue 100, 15 May 1880

  1. New formats

    Papers Past now contains more than just newspapers. Use these links to navigate to other kinds of materials.

  2. Hierarchy

    These links will always show you how deep you are in the collection. Click them to get a broader view of the items you're currently viewing.

  3. Search

    Enter names, places, or other keywords that you're curious about here. We'll look for them in the fulltext of millions of articles.

  4. Search

    Browsed to an interesting page? Click here to search within the item you're currently viewing, or start a new search.

  5. Search facets

    Use these buttons to limit your searches to particular dates, titles, and more.

  6. View selection

    Switch between images of the original document and text transcriptions and outlines you can cut and paste.

  7. Tools

    Print, save, zoom in and more.

  8. Explore

    If you'd rather just browse through documents, click here to find titles and issues from particular dates and geographic regions.

  9. Need more help?

    The "Help" link will show you different tips for each page on the site, so click here often as you explore the site.

Working