KAIAPOI.

Press, Volume LII, Issue 9020, 5 February 1895, Page 3

KAIAPOI.

Monday, February 4.

(Before B. W. S.M., and E

Feldwick, Etq. , Mayor).

Prohibition Order.— An order prohibit- j ing publicans and others from supplying John Dickie with intoxicating liquors; in Kaiapoi and Avon Districts was grauteai | Wages. —- Nicholas Gleqaon v Robert Rice, £5, foe six weeks' wages. Plaintiff said he was engaged at 3s 6d a day and defendant had refused to pay him. Defendant and a witnesaesaid Gleeson asked for work and was told he could gull wihl turnip out of the crop for JtiSj'i week./ Judgment was given for six weeks' work at lOa per week and costs. A Grass-Seed Casb.—M. Lynskey v Sawtell aod H. Wachsmau (Sir Fuller), £42 Is SJ, for 253 bushels ryegrass seed at 3a 3d a bushel and 46 sacks. A number of letters were pub in and admitted. Plaintiff gave evidence that before forwarding the seed, which had .been in store about a fortnight, he personally examined it. The seed wixs cool and equal to sample. It was cent away on January 23rd, and plaintiff heard nothing till the 28ch. Hβ wrote on that date for a cheque, and on the same day had notice of the rejection of the seed. Two witnesses in plaintiffs employ gave corroborative evidence. G. Brown said on the 25th, on plaintiffs advice, he sold grass seed to defeudauta at 23 lOd. He was told at defendant's oißee his , seed was not so clean as Mr Lynskey's. On the 28th was told at defendants' that plaintiff's seed was nob up to sample. For the defence J. F. Wachsman said the seed was sampled on January 25th, but he did not see it till the 28cU$ when, after inspecting the seed as an expert, be gave notice of rejection. The seed in question had been . sold by the sample at 3a 9d per bnshel to Mr Beckett, RangitikeL The sample sent was a good one, the forty-six bags, of which one was produced, contained twitch and docks. Some bags had two classes of seed in thetopandbottom. The value of the seed was from 2s 6d to 2s 9d a buehel at Addington. 6. L. Minifie, storeman National Agency Company, said he received the forty-six sacks from plaintiff at Addington ou the 24th, and sampled them on the 23th. The contents ef the sacks were musty, and not equal to sample. The Magistrate said he had mainly to consider whether immediate notice had been given by the vendor. Although merchants bought by sample it was necessary they should protect their interests by inspecting the bulk on ita delivery. Hβ should bold that there had been delay, and as he was asked to decide the case in respect of the value he held that a fair Value was 2* 9d per bushel. Judgment for plaintiff for £35 14s lid. Ho order wae mad* for cokU. v