Feilding R.M. Court.

Feilding Star, Volume XII, Issue 75, 11 December 1890, Page 2

Feilding R.M. Court.

* Wednesday, 10th Dboembeb. (Before Messrs C. Bull, and G. Kirton. J. P.s.) J. O. Lilly v L. Holden.—Claira f 5. This was a claim for wages and board, Mr Prior for plaintiff and Mr Sandilands ' for defendant. Plaintiff deposed : He had engaged with Mr Holden to serve a term of probation for three months, and. after the expiration of that time to be paid 10s a week wages. J. H. Stevens deposed to having advised plaintiff not to go as a cadet, but if he wanted to learn farming to go to work for wages; had introduced the parties to each other. For the defence •••'•■ L Holden deposed ; Plaintiff came to work for him through Mr J. H. Stevens ; had told plaintiff -he would take him on for six months, and after the expiry o that term if he liked to engage himself he (Holden) would pay bird what he was worth ; plaintiff consented and lived aa one of the family. Mr John Saxonj Mr J. H. Fry, and Mr F. Y. Lethbridge having given evidence as to the custom of farmers in the matter of cadets, the plaintiff was non-suited with costs 95,. solicitor's fee 21a. C. H. Ruthven v Louis Dafter. — Claim JM 10s. This was a claim for balance money due on the sale of a watch.' Plaintiff conducted his own case. Mr Prior for defendant. : The evidence of W. Coltman, expert, taken in Wellington, declared the watch was worth £7. a... A-A The plaintiff deposed he bad sold a watch to defendant for £13 which, with other jewellery, made .£ls 18s 6d ; had been paid £11 8s 2d on recount ; gave £10 for the watch, which he got out from England for the defendant. . L G. W. Fowles was called in as an expert, and deposed the watch, retail value, was worth £10 ; it was a Swiss lever. Louis Dafter deposed : He had wanted an English Lever watch ; after he took delivery he had some doubts as . to the value of the watch, and therefore sent it " to Welhngton by his wife td MrL Coltman to be valued. '. Mrs Dafter confirmed tiie evidence of the previous witness. .„,, . r . The verdict was for defendant with costs, the watch to be returned to plaintiff; on his refunding £8 9s 8d to defendant. Koro Ranao v J Sanders.— ; Claim £18 10s. Mr Prior for plaintiff and Mr FitzHerbert for defendant.. . Plaintiff deposed he had been employed to plough 35 acres of land by defendant, at 7s per acre, and to cross plough the same; had ploughed the land but not cross ploughed it as he could not get his plough through the turned sods. .In crossexamination plaintiff said he* did not agree tp plough, cross-plough, sow, and roll ; did not agree to do the work at half the price an European would charge, R. Duruy deposed: He had seen the land ploughed by plaintiff; it was done well. For the defence Mr Fitzherbert called Joseph Saunders, who deposed : Plain- ' tiff had applied to him for the job of ploughing the land ; agreed to, give him the job if he ploughed, cross-ploughed, sowed and rolled it for 7s per acre ; after the first ploughing had great difficulty in [ ge tingjplaintiff to commence the crosspi. v hing, which was a part ofthe original agreement; when the second ploughing was done sent men to put in he seed, but the latter told lijo it would only be v asted. Andrew Campbell deposed : Korou had told him a day or two after he had taken the job that he (K>rou) was going to do ii for 7s per aore. fA. Peter Garretty and H. Cent gave evidence as to the faulty nature of lhe work. Frank Saunders deposed: He was in charge of the place ; had told Korou he was not doing his work properly, as the land was to be cross-ploughed; plaintiff told witness "You are not the boss." Mr Fitzherbert addressed the Bench and Mr Prior having replied, a verdict was given for plaintiff for £_ 17s 3d, each party yo pay tbeir own costs. [Mr Bull here retired from the Bench and Mr F. Y. Lethbridge took his Beat.] Fairfield Thompson v A Hannett. — Claim £3, for one ton Qf hay. Mr Prior for plaintiff and Mr Sandilands for defendant. The evidence was read of defendant taken at Hawera, in which he stated the hay was to be paid by the service of a horse. Plaintiff deposed that owing to his mare having died this was impossible ; had sent Hannett the account three times. Judgment for plaintiff with costs 7s. J Moffatt v G Gedge.— Claim £4 ls 7d. Judgment for plaintiff with costs 13s, solicitor's fee 21s. Cuthbertson and Co. v Ruthven.— -£1 7s ld. Judgment for tbe amount claimed with costs, less 7s set off. The case Saml. Sidet v Maitiandand another was adjourned to allow the parties to adjust the particulars ofthe claims. Tbe Court then adjourned to the 19th instant.