DISTRICT COURT.—Thursday.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XII, Issue 4290, 13 August 1875, Page 4

DISTRICT COURT.—Thursday.

t Before Francis Dart Fenton, Esq., Acting JndßC.l Ax adjourneil sitting of the Court was held this morning, and the following business disposed of :— Wilkins v. Taylou.—Claim, £32 17s. Mr. Rees for the plaintiff; Mr. Hcsketh for the defendant. This was a cross action. The first action, Taylor v. Wilkius, a claim for trespass, was tried on Monda\-, before a jury, and a verdict returned for the plaintiff, with damages £12 lis. The present action was fcronght to recover losses sustained by Wilkins in consequence of certain trespasses and damages to his property caused by the servants or agents of the defendants. The particulars of the claim were set out as follows : —(1.) £5 was claimed on account of five tons of firewood, cut by defendant's man on the plaintiff's land. "(2.) £1 for seven weeks' keep of two heifers, turned out of the defendant's paddock, although there was an agreement between the defendant and the plaintiff that they were to be kept there until near calving. (3 ) £6 for loss of butter that would have been derived from these heifers as dair3 - cow 6 : the heifers ha<'. run away into the bush. (4.) £15 for the loss of a bullock "dogged'' by the defendant's man into a swamp, where it died. (5.) £1 on account of damage done to plaintiff's fence ; services of a bull. ((>.) £1 for kauri timber, at 14s per 100 feet. There was also a claim of £1 7s for firewood, which was omitted. The parties are owners of adjoining lands at Waikuku (Kaipara). The plaintiff resides on the land, but the defendant resides at Mount Albert. The principal questions raised were as to how far a master ■was responsible for the acts of his servant or care-taker, who acted as agent in his absence. The defendant admitted the item of £4 7s, but in respect to the other items pleaded not indebted ; that the acts alleged as trespass by his servant were done " not in the course of his ordinary employment as an agent," •without the defendant's consent, and therefore he (defendant) was not responsible for them. The plaintiff was examined at great length, and deposed to the several items claimed. He had repeatedly told defendant's man not to cut the firewood. The firewood wa3 cut or burnt in Mr. Taylor's house or cottage, and the wood was used for fuel. The two heifers got into the ±>ush and became quite wild, so that they were lost to the dair} - after they had calved. Thought £G a reasonable charge for the loss of butter. The bullock was " dogged" to the swamp by Jonathan Morris, a servant of the defendant. The witness spoke to the same effect in regard to the other items of loss or damage charged. This evidence was fully corroborated by the plaintiff's son, Benjamin Wilkins. Mr. ITusketh, for the defence, called Mr. Taylor, who deposed that he had not given his servant Morris any authority to cut firewood on the plaintiffs land, but the directions given to him were, that the firewood was to be got from the defendant's land. It was not at all necessary that the wood should be obtained from plaintiff's laud. He had never previously heard of the claim for firewood taken by Morris. The two heifers were bought by the plaintiff, and were to remain with defendant's cattle until near calving, defendant's cattle ran in the bush as well as on the grass land. Morris worked by the day, and had his choice to work when he pleased. So authority was even given to Morris to cut down ti-trec on Mr. Wilkins' land. Wilkins was cross-examined by Mr. Rees. By the Bench : I generally left Morris instructions what to do, but if ho saw anything else necessary he would do it. Jonathan Morris, who had been employed by Mr. Taylor at hie farm at Waikuku, gave evidence of the sale of the two heifers in question. The conditions of the sale were that they should run with the defendant's cattle in the hush. At the request of the plaintiff witness got the heifers out of the bush to his own cattle in the paddock, where he kept them until the feed was getting short, and he then sent the plaintiff word that they must be taken away, or he would turn them out to the other cattle. Tho next morning the heifers were taken away. Witness had never chased a bullock belonging to the plaintiff, and did not know of one having been "dogged." He had taken a few bundles of ti-tree scrub from the plaintiff's land, but had not done so after the plaintiff spoke to him about it He had never cut any fireWood on plaintiff's land. Michael Foster, a farm servant in the employ of Mr. Taylor, Baid that at one time he drove the defendant's cows from the plaintiff's land. He had never driven the cows to the plaintiffs bulls, and had not known of any of tho plaintiff's cattle having been "dogged." Mr. Rees abandoned the cost of the bullock— £15. Mr. Hesketh addressed the jury for the defendant, and Mr. Rees for the plaintiff. His Honor having directed the attention of the jury to the various points of law, and evidence affecting the issue of the case, the jury retired to consider their Terdict. On returning, the jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff on items 1, 5, and C, viz., £5 for five tons of firewood cut by the defendant's servant, £1 for damage done to fence, and 10s for service of bull. The item £4 7s was admitted. Mr. Rees applied for'costs, but the Court declined to grant the application. Adjournment,.—The caso Kelly v. Oibbons was adjourned until 11.30 a.m., and the case Bentley v. White until 2 p.m. on Friday.