RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

North Otago Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 7466, 14 September 1892, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Ye&tekday. (Beforo Major Keddell, R.M.) CIVIL CASKS. Jane Watson v. Martin Hennessey and Annie Hennessey, claim L14 for rent and possession of property at Wtiiareka.. Defendants did not appear. Mr Craw ford appeared for the plaintiff. Garden Watfcon said he was husband of the plaintiff, and tfie deed produced was signed by his wife and witnessed by witness. The signature thereon was that of Martin Hennessey. About a year ago Hennessey and his wife ceased to have any interest in the possession of the property. Plaintiff was entitled to claim for rent from March last. There were 15 acres of land worth from 13s to 15s an acre, and rent was due on that. He gave Hennessey no authority to remove any buildings. Judgment for immediate poBbession of the property was given, for L14 rent, and costs L2 10s. Fong Moy v. Ah Sue, claim L2 Is. Mr Crawford appeared for plaintiff, for whom judgment »a,s given by default ivith 10s 6d costs. Alex. Samuel v. T. C. Dennison, claim Lll for wages for shepherding from 31st March to 26th May, 1891. MrLee(Hislop and Creagh) appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Newton for defendant. Plaintiff said about 18 months ago Mr Garden Watson engaged plaintiff on behalf of Mr Dennison to look after sheep at Pukeun, and afterwards he saw ,Mr Dennison and Mr Watson, and the arrangement was made to pay a fair rate of wages, and he had charged LI 7s 6d a week. He had received various written instructions from Mr Dennison to deliver sheep to various persons, which instructions he carried out. Oxi the 31st of March he delivered an account to Mr Dennison. He had previously received L4 from Mr Denmsson, and about the 31st of March a dispute occurred regarding the rate charged for wages, and he accepted L10 in payment of his account. At the 31st of March there were still sheep on the property, and he continued looking after them. On the 3rd of April he recened a note from Mr DennLson to bring m certain sheep and lambs to the .sale yards. He did so. This still left sheep on the property, and he looked after them to tbe 26th of May. About that date plaintiff was told to take the sheep to Fnston, and he did so. After the 26th of May plaintiff asked Mr DannUon for payment, and Mr Dennison said if a certain thing occurred he would pay the claim at once.

On the 8th of Juno ho received a letter fioni Mi Dcmnson sajing that plamtill inusfc look to Garden Watson for payment, and that ho had committed a breach of trust in letting Mr (i.uden Watson have the sheep. Plaintiff said lie had gneu the sheep to Mr Watson on Mr Demnson'b ordeis. In December last he had received another note from Mr Dennison declining to pay the account and asking him to look to Mr Watson, who had engaged him in his (defendant's) presence. To Mr Newton the plaintifl said he could not recollect wilting or getting got anyone else to wiite the lettei produced to Mr Denniston, stating th.it ho had applied to Mr Watson for payment, and he had reform! him to Mr Donnison for payment. He was not aware that Mr Denmson was simply acting as an agent for Mr Watson. Mr Donnison never told plaintiff on the 31st March that lie would not require him any longer. He was not aw aie that the .sheep belonged to Mr Watson, and that Mr Denniston held them only as security. He was not engaged by Mr Watson in Mr Denmson'a presence. (4. B. Watson ;-aid he got sheep for Mr Denmson m the beginning of 1891, and owing to the fences being in such a bad condition it was necessary to engage a man. A man was engaged by Mr Dennison's orders. Witness bought sheep for defendant, and it was arranged that if there was a siuplus over the rent that it would be divided between witness and defendant. Samuel was engaged by Mr Dennison's orders. On the day Mr I Samuel whs engaged certain .sheep were handed over by defendant to Samuel to look after. No fresh arrangement was made on the 31st March about shepherding. Mr Dennison gave all the instructions regauling the sheep. Witness did not get the account bales of the sheep < sold in Oamarn. In May some sheep j were brought to Friston. Feed had gone at Pukeuri, and that was the reason the sheep were taken to Fiiston. The instructions came from Mr Denmson. No fresh engagement was mado w ith Samuel to look to witness for payment »f his wages. Mr Samuel had not applied to witness for payment. To Mr Newton : The sheep taken to Friston were, he believed, sold by Mr Denniison. There w ere about 100 sheep. The sheep were j grazing at Friston for about three months. Mr Dennison had never complained to witness of the sheep ha\ ing been taken from Pukeuri to Friston. The witness said that some of the sheep put on to graze at Pukeuri w ere paid for by witness and not by Mr Dennison, and an equal number was taken to Fiiston. The sheep at Pukeuri were not subject to lien. He probably saw the accounts for hi and L10 sent from Samuel to Dennison. The accounts were .sent back to Dennison. His wife gave a mortgage over Fiiston for L450 to Mr Dennison. Mr Dennison had issued a w nt, and got judgment against witness. He never told Samuel that he was to look to w ltness for payment, "nor did he tell Mr Dennison that he had. To Mr Lee : He had had many business transactions with Mr Dennison, and they were very involved. This closed the plaintiff's case. Mr Newton called Thos. C. Dennison, k ho said Mi Watson's statement was not coirect. The sheep grazing on the land from March up to .May belonged to Mis Watson. He was acting as agent for Mis Watson during his time. Theie was no j truth m the (statement about the surplus over rent having to be divided. On the 31st March he told Samuel that he would not further be required, and that he must look to Watson for payment. Mrs Watson had the grazing, and Watson was acting as her agent. When the arrangement was first made about the engagement of Samuel, he asked Watson m the presence of Samuel if he knew to w horn to look for payment, and Watson said he was to look to him (Watson). He never gave any instructions to Samuel to take sheep to Friston, and they weie taken away without his knowledge. He never engaged Samuel at any time. To IV' r Lee : It w as to his interest that the sheep should be looked after. On the 31st March all the fences were repaired, and there was no necessity for Samuel. He told Samuel, after that date, to look to "Watson for payment. Everything that was none was not done accoidmg to his orderte. The sheep taken to Fiiston wore taken without Ins knowledge. He immediately wrote to Mr Samuel and saw Mr Watson, w ho said feed was scarce at Pukeuri. Defendant asked why the sheep were not sold, as he wished to realise on them. The Magistrate said there had been a partner- , ship, and it was v\ idently not a \ ery happy [one. The evidence was conflicting, but the weight of evidence was against the defendant, and judgment would be given against the defendant for Lll, with costs L4 8s.