KUMARA S. M. COURT.

Greymouth Evening Star, 4 June 1909, Page 4

KUMARA S. M. COURT.

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 2nd, 1909.

(Before R. J. Acheson, Esq., S.M.) Eliza Tracey (Christchurch Road) applied for a rehearing of Hie case heard last court day when Michael Corbett was awarded £3 by the Court on a claim for shearing sheep. >he applicant sej out. 1 1ml (I). She was taken by surprise h) the evidence given by Corbett ; (2). John Harris could prove plaintiff did not shear the sheep claimed ; (3). That Erin Tracey was present when plaintiff said his charge was £1

os; , (4.) That plaintiff received Jits board and lodging whilst, shearing ami this was taken into acconn ;t when Hu £1 5s was arrived at. Mr Kitclnngham appeared for applicant, and Mr Murdoch for defendant. Eliza Tracey sworn, gave evidence m support of her application for a rehearing. during which she said she .-..uhl not swear as to the number ,d sheep shorn by Corbett. ( Cross-examined by Mr .Murdoch she said.— I knew last court day that my daughter heard Corbett say his charge was 25 -. I did not bring my dangle ter last court day because I didn think that Corbett would claim any' more than 25,;. I was also aware Mr Harris wss working with my son on the second day of shearing.

Erin Trace, sworn said ; I am a daughter of plaint iff. I remember Corbett 'being in my mothers place after the shearing. I was in the room to,. I heard Corbett and my mother talking. 1 could m>l say what, they were talking about. I did not li sir all the conversation. 1 beard fail m it, however Mr Corbett -aid bis charge was 25 To Mr Mnrii i'h. I was tiros'".; during Hi* wind* of Hi« conversation. 1 did not hear all that was said. 1 never heard any conversation about a sum of nioimv duo to my brother ‘o be set off against Hie claim made by Mi Corbett. Mr Corbett- was shaking hands with my mother .and sue ashed him what his charge would be and he said 25/-. They then left the room. To the Delude 1 knew that Corbett's liaxmill, owned by Corbetts Lilli, i, owed my brother £5. When inv mother got Hie tetter f r mi Mr Mu'dncli she said she couldn't und r.,l,ind Corbett claiming £3 when sh ;

only ow. .1 b'm 25, -. .John Harris sworn said.—l tin a farmer residing on the Christchurch Hoad, 1 was at Tracey’s in February lasi shearing for Mrs I racer. 1 weld to work at about 8.10 a,in. Corbel! was there. '1 hey were out getting the sheet) together when 1 arrived. , could not say how many sheep .’orbed could shear in a day nor how many I could shear. The usual rate i pay :s 20 - per 100 sheep. I would not expect a man to yard and shear tinsheep at that rate. 1 wasn't paid for mv shearing on lhal day. I was only helping Mrs Tracey. To ' Ml- Murdoch. —Corbett was already at the shearing place when I arrived at 10 minutes past 6 in the im.ruing. It would dike twenty min utes In go (nun Mrs ’1 race) s in (Inplace whore the sheep were shorn. If Mrs Trace) savs he loft her pi me be tween 0 and 8.10 am. she must be

wrong. i cannot -ay whether } o charged bv Corbett in exorbitant not. I lelt work on Hie day 1 was shearing at between 5 and 0 p.m. To th;. Bench.— I could shear between 50 ami' 100 sheep in a day. ! could m.t say le.w many sheep Corbett could sh"ar in a day. 1 don’t know how many 1 slime on the day I was there I don’t know how many were shorn by tin- three of us. this closed plaintiffs case.

.Mr Murdoch, in addressing the Court contended that the evidence did not justify the application for a new trial. -Ilfs Tracey had not shown reasonable diligence in the tir>t It ml. Sin now swore that sin- knew of hei daughter’s evidence on the first trial but did m.t bring it forward. Mr Harris’s evidence was useless as he did no. know how many sheep were shorn bv any of them.

Mr Kilcliiughiim contended that Mrs Tracev was emit led to a rehearing. She was taken by surprise by the claim and hadn’t her defence prepaid. She didn’t think Corbett would make »he statements he did and Mr did not bring her daughter’s evidence forward at the first trial. His Worship, in giving judgment, said tho new evidence justified him in granting the application. However, Mrs Tracey had not used reasonable diligence in bringing forward ev;d ace when the case was last bvb.ro the Court. Whilst granting the application for a re-hearing he would require .Mrs Tracey to pay the cost* of the present application £1 Is solicitor's feo and also, pay the amount of the last judgment £5 and costs into court before flic ease would be re-heard.