RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.
(Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.)
Albert Dornwellv. James Walsh.—Claim, L2 13a lid. for goods supplied. Defendant denied having ever owed plaintiff any money, because he had advertised that he would not be responsible for any debts contracted by his wife.—There was put in as evidence a book in whioh the goods alleged to have been received were entered. Several leaves in the book were missing, and His Worship said that no doubt that leaves had been removed —how he did not know.—Judgment for plaintiff for L2 0s 7d, with costs; defendant being allowed a month in which to pay the account. Spence v. David Shand. Claim, L 45, for. clearing and working defendant's land at Mosgiel. Sir Robert Stout for plaintiff} Mr G. Cook for defendant. Plaintiff said that an oral contract was entered into between himself and defendant, by which witness was to plough the land. The land was cleared, but when defendant was asked for money as payment he first said that as the contract had lasted for more than a year he had been informed that he need not pay unless he liked. The agreement set out that he was to clear all stumps, etc., from the land, so as to make it fit for growing crops. To Mr Cook: The agreement stated with referenceto the taking up of stumps that the man ploughing, when one was met, had to put up a Btick. Witness was not supposed to follow the plough himself—that was never mentioned, he was positive. When the first ploughing was done on the land. Defendant complained of several stumps, etc.; but witness did not remove the stumps—defendant did that. The stumps were all removed from the land at present. If there were stumps on the ground now they must have been there six months ago—when witness last examined the ground. Witness was not supposed, according to his reading of the agreement, to examine the land for stumps after eveiy ploughing. The reason that defendant gave for not paying the account was that he had been informed by his solicitor that, the contract extending over a year, there was no reason for -paying the amount claimed. Witness had sub-let several of the contracts, and had paid the subcontractors, and after investigating the nature of the ground had' satisfied himself that the work had been satisfactorily done.—Evidence for the plaintiff was given by William Barclay, William Scott, Andrew Swallow (who said that the agreement was to clear "for the plough"), Robert Wyllie, and David Blair. Mr Cook submitted that the contract specially mentioned that men were to be sent after the ploughing to clear the land of all stumps which had been turned up by the ploughs.—Defendant said that plaintiff r agreed to keep men to follow the plough to clear all stumps. There was no agreement between himself and plaintiff as to time, but the latter had asked not to be bound to time. Plaintiff had taken the contract in 1886, and had started on the work, but bad gone to another contract on the Plains.- In 1887 plaintiff had promised to go on with the ploughing, and had intimated to witness that he would conclude the contraot by subletting it. There were several stumps just below the surface which were never touched. When plaintiff applied for payment, about four months ago, witness refused to pay, and stated as a reason that the contract was not finished. To Sir R. Stout: Witness
had never refused to pay plaintiff, giving a* a reason that as the mtract had extended* over a year he bad been informed by a* solicitor that he was not liable.—John Wills* strid that when ploughing Mr Sband's landi considerable trouble had been caused by the» l&rge'nursber of stumps left in the ground, tfhey cbufd hove been seen after every ploughing. To Sir E. Stout: Witmssploug&ed round some of the stumps because it was impossible to plowgh over them.— Evidence watf also given by John Gilmour and Samuel Millhjan.—Judgment was given for plaintiff, with eosts ;• His Worship remarking that defendant could in retmrn Bue for a breach of contract.
Mary Daniels v. A. Cu/tt*.—Claim, for wrongful detention of sf-bewe and cart. Mr Mouat appeared for plai'oWf; Mr Sim for defendant.-Plaintiff was nonsuited, with costs.
CITY POLICE COURT. (Before Messrs A. Christopher and G. £» Denniston, J.P.s.) DauNKENsras.— Two first offenders were* deals wrSb in the usual manner, /antes* Mormon, wHb three previous convictions, recorded against' him, was consisted ssm£ discharged, it being three years since he lasts, appeared on a similar charge. A Bad Charactee.— frediridt fioydi with five previous convictions, was cbarg** wjth having on the 26th ulfc asade use of obscene language in Hanover street.—■ Accused pleaded not guilty.—Evidease was> given to the effect that on the morning of th* 26th ult. accused was quarrelling with his (bother in Miller's right-of-way, an* used the language complained of. It waa* also stated tint he was in the habit of taking women of ill-fame into the home of his mother against her will, and then tuning her out. It was la consequence of his mother remonstrating with accused that the quarrel began.—Accused denied the* statements of the police, and called hie mother, who at first refused to give evidence, but afterwards stated that her son used the words mentioned. Sergeant-major Belts* gave accused a very bad character, and the Bench sentenced him to one month's imprisonment. : Ann Jfath? was charged with using: : obscene language at Csversham on the 23rd i ult.—Accused admitted nsing the language, bffS Said in extenuation that she had "taken a drop' too much."—She waff sentenced to seven days hard labor. By-law Ga&b*;—For keeping unregistered dogs in their possession, Thomas SulUtan (two charges), Frectiritlt Hanson, William PMlp, Charled King, t»mf Water Baeo* were fined Is each, without «bst»>
Permanent link to this item
THE COURTS.-TO-DAY., Evening Star, Issue 7947, 1 July 1889
THE COURTS.-TO-DAY. Evening Star, Issue 7947, 1 July 1889
Using This Item
Allied Press Ltd is the copyright owner for the Evening Star. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons New Zealand BY-NC-SA licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Allied Press Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.