Article image
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 COURTS.

SOUTH RAKAlA— Yesterday. (Before H- 0. S Baddelay, Esq., R.M.) Breach of Railway By-Law. —James Caleb Tucker, William McTnmun, John Nicholls, Walter Harrnell and Thoa. Betts were charged with riding or driving over a railway line at other than a walking pace —Hia Worship pointed out that two offences were committed unlets parties stopped before crossing the railway, but added that as the costa in these cates were heavy he would inflict no fine. The defendants were cautioned and dismissed. Breaches oe the Impounding Act.— Albert James Howelll, charged with allowing a horse to wander at large was fined 5s and costs 7s.—Henry Primmer, for allowing a cow to wander, was fined 7s 6d and cos’s 7s.- Joseph Brimicombe, for allowing a horse to wander, was fined 5s and coats 7s.—The same, for allowing four horses to wander, was fined 23s and costa 7s.—Charles Lake, for allowing a horse to wander, was fined 7s 6d and costs 7a.—John Johnson, for allowing three horses to wander at large at Methven, was fined 17s 6J and costa 14s. — James Craig, for allowing two horses to wander, was fined 5s and costa 7s. —John Hoarder, for allowing a horse to wander, was fined 5s and costs 7s.—John Burrows, for allowing a horse to wander, was fined 5-, and costs 7s. Civil Cases. Hardy and Co v Alexander, claim L2 Os 4d. Judgment for the amount claimed and costs 11a. W. Cox v J. Walker, claim lla 103. — Judgment for the amount claimed and coats.

ASHBURTON— To-dat,

(Before H. C. S. Baddeley, Esq., R.M.) CIVIL CASES. Mount Somers Road Board v Thompson, claim L 9 6s Bd. Mr J. 0. Bell, clerk to the Board, appeared in support of the claim ; there was no appearance of the defendant. Judgment by default for the amount claimed and coats. Property Tax Commissioner v Lemon, claim L2l2s Bd. J udgment by default for amount claimed and costs, Dimant and Coe v Lawrence, claim, L 4 3s.—Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs. Friedlander Bros, v Corabie and .East, claim L 27 la Bd.—Mr Purnell for the plaintiffs, Mr Branson for the defendants. —On the application of Mr Branson the casa was adjourned for a week. 1 Wildinsr, Lewis and Caygill v Moore, 1 claim L 5 3a 4d.—Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs. 1 Franks v Jones and Bradshaw, claim L 7 5s, —Mr Branson for the plaintiff; Mr Caygill for the defendants.—John > Franks, who described himself as a farm k laborer, said that in consequence of letters t received from the defendants he came to ) Ashburton on 31st January. The defendant Jones had directed him to proceed to Tinwald to repair a threshing machine. i The witness detailed the time he had deviled to work upon the machine. —To Mr j Caygill: The defendant Bradshaw had . assisted in making repairs to the machine. ( Witness described the assistance given by , Bradshaw. Witness was originally engaged to drive and generally supervise the work of the machine. He had en- } gaged his own son, a lad of 18 yeira, as feeder; he was a competent hand. He j had received payment for driving the machine, and the following day demanded payment of the present claim. He had not previously made application ■ for the amount.—To the Bench ; He had ' not thought to ask for payment when " settled with for the threshing. The mi- ' chine commenced to thresh on February ! 28, the repairs were finished on February 1 18; during the interval witness had done nothing.—Francis Shearer, agricultural k machinist, said he considered the plaintiff ; a competent man to repair a threshing 5 machine. The charge made by,the plaint tiff was a fair and reasonable one. Witi ness had emp’oyed defendant and found 5 him a reliable workman.— this concluded i the plaintiff’s case, and Mr Cajgill called 5 the following evidence for the defence. — i William Jones, -one of the defendants, ; said the plaintiff had been employed to I sot the machine in order, act as driver 3 through the season, procure work for the J machine, and provide a feeder, and to reII ceive as payment 42s C 1 per thousand upon > the grain threshed. The plaintiff lived in 1 Christchurch, and defendants bad agreed > to let him know as closely as possible the date upon which the machine would 1 commence work. It was arranged no ■ wages should be paid till the machine ' commenced work. The machine was ■ not out of order, it only required dusting and a few unimportant re- • pairs. Witness first heard of the claim • after plaintiff had received payment 1 at the rate agreed upon.—To Mr Branson; i The repairs required by a machine were usually done by a driver prior to commencing work, and these should not have occupied the plaintiff more than l this) days. The rats of wages, 42a 61 per thousand, was 15s per thousand higher than that at which another driver and feeder could have been procured. Witness had sent for plaintiff’ to come to Ashburton in January, as at that time there was a probability of the machine commencing work at once. The negotiations then in course were not completed.—J- Bradshaw, the other defendant, corr borated the evidence of the previous witness in respect to the agreement made between the plaintiff and defendants. Witness had worked upon the machine with the plaintiff for four days; when witness left the machine, there remained work to be done which should have occupied the plaintiff two or three days. —To the Bench; The high wages were paid to plaintiff as the defendants thought him a competent man, and wished him to place the machine in thorough order. —Mr Horne said the wages paid were about 10s per thousand above the current rates. Witness considered the additional wages should pay for the preliminary expanses.—Counsel having ad dressed the Bench, judgmsnt was given for the defendants, witu costs against the plaintiff. Betts v Horne, claim L 33 13s.—Mr Wilding for the plaintiff; Mr Purnell for the defendant. —-The plaint alleged that the plaintiff had purchased from the defendant a second-hand Bearing reaper and binder. The defendant and his age.it, Mr 0. Ray, guaranteed the machine to bo in ] good order. The machine proved unfit . for work, and the defendant now claimed repayment of the amount paid for the ] machine, L2O, special damages Ll2 18s, and price of extras 15a. —Mr Wilding having stated particulars'of the plaintiff’s j case ctiled the following evidence.—Geo. c C suiter, a contractor, said he had had e much experience in harvest work. He c had been present at a conversation be- i tween the plaintiff and defendant in re- a sped to the purchase of reapers and binders by the former from the latter. The a defendant had s ated he would give a t guarantee with the machines, and if they r would not work he would exchange them- f At that time the machines were at Ray’s <1 undergoing repairs. Witness had accom- t panied plaintiff to Bay’s to inspect the a machines. They found the Doering machine did not tie, but Bay said it would h work batter in the paddock. The plaintiff t called attention to the main wheel, and said e ! e did pot think it good enough to work I in the paddock ; H»y assured them it would work- The plaintiff look the A machine and it was tried a few days later, y It was found much out of order, and tl could not be made to work.—To Mr Pur- hi pell : Witness had recently beep cm- n

victed of larceny ; he had received a months’imprisonment. He bad stood at the defendant’s office door daring the conversation in reference to the machine. Witness repeated the headings of the consation. The machine had been first tried at Digby’a ; it was then removed to Laghmor, and afterwards returned to Ashburton. Witness was not a laborer, he was a contractor.—To Mr Wilding : The larceny ease refeired to by Mr Purnell “had something to do with a saddle he borrowed from a friend.” He had no interest to speak anything but the truth in this case. He was fully satisfied that both the defendant and Fay had guaranteed the machine.—F. Betts, plaintiff, said he had several conversations with the defendant with reference to the purchase of machines for harvest work On January 19 an arrangement for the purchase of two second-hand machines was made in defendant’s office. Defendant said the machines had been sent to Ray’s blacksmith shop for the purpose of being repaired, and he had authorised Ray to sell them if possible. Witness asked if defendant would guarantee the machines to work well, and the latter rep'ied, that if the machines did n t give satisfaction, ho (witness) could return them and receive new ones in their stead. Witness, at the request of defendant, then visited Bay, and held a lengthy conversation with him in regard to the quality of the machines. Ray asserted that the machines were both in good working order, and if they did not satisfy witness they could be returned. It was agreed thit the price for the Samuelson machine should be 1i25 and for the Deering L2O. Witness pointed out a number of defects in the machine, and Ray said that it would go all light when put to work in the fiald. The machine was tried by witness next day in a grass paddock, and broke down completely. Witness informed Ray of this, and the latter said that a trial in grass was hardly a fair one, and asked witness to try it in a grain crop. Witness had some repairs effected, and on finding that it would nov work satisfactorily in the crop took it to Ray’s yard and left it there Ray offered to repair the machine, but witness would not agree to that, as he was thoroughly disgusted with it. Witness estimated that he had lost about LSO through the unsatisfactory working of the machine Witness sould not tell by the inspection he made in Ray’s yard whether the machine would work or not. Witness had purchased the machine solely on the guarantee of defendant and Mr Ray.—To Mr Purnell : I went to the defendant with i the intention of purchasing the machine from the New Zealand Grain Agency Company, I inspected the machines on two different occasions. I never purchased anything from Ray for the purpose of repairing this machine, but I pro-

cured several bolts from him for my other machines. When I brought the machine to Ashburton, after it had broken down, I never told defendant that I would have t > get it repaired and ready for work within a week. I remember defendant asking me for settlement of the Grain Agency’s account I proposed that the L2O paid for the Deering machine should ha deducted. I did make mention of damages, and the defendant, in reply, said, “ The best thing you can do is to go for Ray for damages, and I’ll do my best for you iu Court.”—D. Betts, father of plaintiff, said he went to Ray’s blackatai'h shop, about the middle of January last, to inspect the two machines in question. On trial it was found that the Deering not tic. Plaintiff expressed dissatisfaction with the Deering m ichiue. Ray sat'd he would guarantee it to work perfectly when put into a grain crop. Witness was present when the machine was tried in the grain paddock, It went very bad, and work had to be suspended. Witness subsequently saw Ray about the matter, and the latter promised to go and inspect the machine, but had never done ao.— Plaintiff re called at the request of Mr Wilding, said after he had returned the machine to Ray’s yard ha asked defendant if he would supply him with another machine. Defendant replied in the affirmative, and it was agreed that the L2O paid for the Deering should be deducted from the pries of the new machine. —Frederick Beits, brother of plaint : ff, said he was present at a conversation between plaintiff and Ray with reference to two machines. Ray said they ware in good working order, and he would guarantee them. It was arranged that die machine should be returned if it did not give satisfaction. Witness was present when a trial of the machine was made in a grass paddock. It worked very badly, and work had to be stopped in order that it might be repaired.—Joseph Stephens, blacksmith, deposed to having repaired the Deering machine in question. It was in a very bad state, and unfit for working. Witness enumerated the defective parts of the machine.— Valentine Joyce, contractor, said he saw the Deering machine purchased by plaintiff at work in a grass paddock. It worked very badly.—D. Joyce said ho was in the employ of plaintiff daring last harvest. The Deering machine would not tie properly, and in general worked very unsatisfactorily. This concluded the evidence for the plaintiff, and Mr Purnell proceeded to open for the defence. (Left sitting.)

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

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AG18850417.2.10

Bibliographic details

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURTS., Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1516, 17 April 1885

Word Count
2,191

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURTS. Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1516, 17 April 1885

Working