RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Lake Wakatip Mail, Issue 1054, 7 February 1878, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Qtteenstown,-- January 30th, IS7B. (Before 11. A. Stratford, Esq., E.M.) Bell v. Win. Ross—An information that the defendant had committed a breach of the Diseased Catt:--i and Sheep Act, 1876, and of section V.) of the schedule thereto. The defend, mt is the head shepherd of Mr William Harrison, sheep owner, who was therefore the real defendant. Both Bell and Harrison are owners of adjoining depasturing runs on the Shotover. In a suit recently tried in this Court the plaintiff recovered from Harrison £SO for trespass upon a piece of country situate between Stoney and Ironstone Creeks. It appears that on the 10th and 11th instants the defendant, with other shepherds, mustered the sheep running on this disputed country. On the 11th inst. the complainant sent his shepherd with a letter to Wm. Ross. M'Gregor, the messenger, met the defendant nearer Queenstown but upon his own run. He saw a flock of sheep but it was too late at night to distinguish brands. He also saw fires on the disputed land. He also deposed that the sheep were mustered in the usual manner. On the 16th instant a shepherd of the plaintiff's visited the yards of Harrison, at Arrowtown, and on the 18th instant took away 331 of his sheep, but got no lambs with them. He considered that neither Harrison or Bell had any right to drive sheep from off his run into the shearing sheds at the Arrow, and he would not admit that the defendant had any right to drive sheep off the country in question. Mr Adair, surveyor, gave evidence that Stoney Creek was the plaintiffs southern boundary ; that Ironstone Creek, claimed by Harrison as his boundary, was higher up the Shotover. The shepherd (M'Gregor) gave evidence of delivering of letter to defendant (Ross) and as to conversation about burning the grass. Luckie proved accepting delivery of 331 of plaintiffs sheep at the yards, Arrowtown, on the 18th inst. The plaintiff was recalled to produce the letter written by Harrison as to the sheep being at the yards, but had not brought it Avith him. It was customary for neighboring run holders to give notice of mustering, but he had received no such notice. For the defence it was contended that as far as the defendant was concerned no offence had been disclosed. The Court, after reviewing the case gave a decision that no evidence had been produced connecting the defendant with the actual driving of the sheep, and that upon that ground the information must fall through. Costs, £3 3s in all, were allowed defendant and witness. In the above case Mr Turton appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Finn for defendant. Sullivan v. Tully—£2l 15s 9d—This case was for improvements made to buildings rented by plaintiff from defendant; for work and labor done ; and for keeping a horse. The defendant pleaded as a set-off £2B 5s 9d, which left the amount in dispute at some £7. This and another case for a loan of £lO made, or alleged to have been made, by plaintiff to defendant, had i een partially heard at the sittings of this Court in December. The chief part of the set-off was for an item that appeared in plaintiffs bill of particulars. Mr Turtoii for plaintiff, Mr Finn for defendant. The defendant disputed plaintiff's claim upon the grounds that he never made any agreement to pay for repairs to tiie buildings; that he never knew anything of their character except in one or two instances of a trifling value ; that 30s a week was an over charge for livery; and that he was not responsible for loam supplied to Powell's stables, although he was lessee at the time. The evidence was read of a witness, C. S. Macdonald, taken in Dunedin. He had kept plaintiff's books, but his evidence proved of no value to the case, and differed materially from statements made in a letter written by him and produced in Court by plaintiff's counsel. Plaintiff deposed that his account was correct. He rented the stable and cottage from defendant first in 1873. He had settlements with the defendant and had been allowed for improvements. He paid the defendant sums of money when he thought the rent amounted to about £5 or £6. He nad no written agreement with defendant nor any written order to make the improvements, but they were constantly being made under the eyes of defendant. He had rendered or given up the receipted bills to defendant for the items he now sued to recover. He (plaintiff) not being able to do so himself had to depend upon others to do his writing and keep his accounts, consequently had overpaid defendant. He never believed that defendant would dispute the accounts. One of the receipts produced was a settlement on Ist September, 1873. It was given in full of all demands. Improvements had been allowed under it. The other settlement was on 30th December, 1875. Improvements were allowed under that,receipt for £l9. He had been under the impression that the receipt was one in full of all demands, but he was told by others that it was for £lO on account. It was an actual settlement and his books would show it was so. Gave the defendant the account for improvements. Knew that he said at the last hearing of this case that he (witness) had not given him the accounts. Found the one produced in the yard of Mr Rogers. It was a bill from Robertson and Co., and was amongst some other rubbish thrown there by defendant. Had handed the bill to defendant. The defendant and himself had been friendly up to the last moment until he denied the receipt of £lO, which he tried to confuse with a like amount paid in 1875. Understood what defendant meant. Further conversation caused him to take out present summons. He had refused to cart the loam for Powell, but defendent said he would pay for it. On the last account for improvements being presented to him he said, " Sullivan, you will ruin me with them ; I will have no rent to take." He afterwards said ho would allow for them, and said I was an old grumbler about the state of the property. As to the item 4s that was cartage from defendant's own house. 50s was charged a week for the keep of the horse " Darky." He was a great eater, and witness would not keep him again for £2 a week. Gave defendant notice after the horse had been with him four days that he should charge 30s a week livery, and witness wanted the horse away even at that rate. Defendant disputed one account made up by Mr Wilson, and then Mr Geisow made up one from the settlement in 1873. That is the account produced now. In cross-examination, which was a very severe one, plaintiff did not in any material matter vary his evidence. He accounted for some discripancies in the account produced because they had been made up from different dates—Wilsou's from 1875, and Geisow's from 1873, but the accounts given to defendant would correspondent with the last statement. He supposed that the account made in November was correct, but making up the later account it was not found so. Wilson fell into the error as well as himself. Defendant, in the dispute, said the £lO was allowed in the November account, and that instead of my allowing him credit for £-20, witness had £3O to get credit for. This puzzled him at the time and he then went over the books again. There were different items for the £3O and the £lO money lent was not included in that sum.

To the Court—Had permission to make the improvements charged for though not in writi!io-. Defendant had seen them in progress, and had said, speaking of the gate, that it was made a g "' ;.o' of. J. M [ub-.'.i corta-m-?d phunt'ffs evifV-ico as tode''e:.dtm a.n :;-ig <o ]rr/ c.oMge <-t loam, li : Wi.scHi;;'■>.■.•» 1 ■■ Mr Powell, bat refusal r-.. do ri.e work for l.ir-.L K. Pows deposed that his charge for livery and grooming a horse was 25s a week. F. W. F. Geisow had made up the account produced from the plaintiff's bo >ks. Cross-examined—Knew nothing about the correctness of them or the circumstances under which the entries were nu.de in the books produced. For the defence the defendant (re-called) repeated the evidence given on a former occasion and again denied the several statements made by plaintiff. He never authorised any improvements. He never saw Robertson's account alleged to have been found by plaintiff in Rogers'yard. Neverobtained the loan mentioned of LlO. Was never requested to remove the horse. M.J. Malaghan thought for a horse running out during the day 15s per week was a fair charge. If kept altogether the charge might be from 20s to 255. Tully v. Sullivan—L7 12s 4d—Evidence taken last December, and admission affecting sums of 20s and 24s were made on each side. Mr Turton said that he had applied on the strength of a letter from one Macdonald to have his evidence taken in Dunedin, but when put into the'witness box, Macdonald corroborated nothing of the kind he had stated in his letter. He had no more evidence to tender. Mr Stratford, whilst carefully summing up, said that throughout the evidence was most contradictory. He should allow the claim of plaintiffs for two weeks livery at 10s. and nine weeks at 30s, equal to Ll4 10s. This with items admitted would make LIS lis 9d. He would give a verdict for L 3 4s. Costs of Court to be divided. In the case of the set off plaintiff admitted Ll and a verdict would be given for this amount. Costs to be divided. Sullivan v. Tuiiy—LlO loan. Case withdrawn.