Resident Magistrate's Court.

Oamaru Mail, 13 September 1892, Page 3

Resident Magistrate's Court.

THIS DA"¥. (Before Major Keddell, R.M.) civil cases.

Jane Watson v. Martin Hennessy and Annie Hennessy; claim Ll4 for rent, and for re-possession of property at Waiareka. Mr Crawford appeared fcr the plaintiff. Defendant did not appear. Garden Watson proved the signatures to the documents. Judgment was given for possession of the property to be given up immediately, and for Ll4 rent and L2 10s costs.

Fong Moy v. Ah Sue ; claim L2 Is. Mr Crawford appeared for plaintiff. Judgment by default for amount claimed, with 16s 6d costs. A. Samuel v. T. C. Dennison, claim Lll for looking after sheep at Pukeuri. Mr Lee for plaintiff, and Mr Newton for the defence. Alexander Samuels said that Mr Watson engaged him about 18 months ago on behalf of Mr Dennison to look after sheep at 27s 6d per week, and afterwards both Mr Dennison and Mr Watson came to Pukeuri, and, in answer to a question, Mr Dennison said he would see witness paid. Letters were put in signed by Mr Dennison authorising witness to deliver sheep to different people. On the 31st March he rendered his account, but previously he had been paid Ll2 altogether by Mr Dennison. He received a letter from Mr Dennison on the 31st March explaining that there was an error in the account, and witness accepted Mr Dennison's version of the account and gave him a receipt up to 31st March. There were sheep at Pukeuri up to 26th May, and on that day Mr Dennison told witness to muster them, and, after looking at them, Mr Dennison told him to let Mr Watson have the sheep if he would take them. Witness let Mr Watson have the sheep, and afterwards he saw Mr Dennison, who told that if he could get the sheep back from Watson he would pay witness. He rendered Mr Dennison an account, and received a reply informing him that he must look to Mr Garden Watson for payment, and that he was much annoyed at witness' breach of trust in letting Mr Watson have the sheep without his orders. Witness had acted on Mr Dennisons's orders in delivering the sheep to Watson. To Mr Newton : Witness said he had never applied to Mr Watson for payment. The letter produced was not sent to Mr Dennison with witness' sanction as far as he remembered. He would not say it was not. He never understood that Mr Dennison was acting as agent for Mr and Mrs Watson. Mr Dennison did not tell witness that he would not require his services after 31st Mirch. He did not understand from Mr Dennison that he was to look to Watson for payment from the first. Garden Watson said that Mr Dennison told him that he wished to get some slieep to graze land at Pukeuri. Witness told him that the fences were in such a state that a man would have to be kept to look after them, and, at his request, he engaged the plaintiff. They also made an arrangement by which he was to buy sheep for Mr Dennison, and he did so, Mr Dennison finding the money. The sheep were put on Jones' land, and, if there was a profit after the grazing was paid, it was to be divided between witness and Mr Dennison. Mr Dennison instructed Mr Samuels as to what was to be done with the sheep. On the 13th April some sheep were brought into Oamaru by Samuels at Mr Dennison's order. Some were sold, and some .vere taken back to Pukeuri. Witness did not get any account sales of those that were sold. The sheep which went back to Pukeuri were afterwards taken to Friston, because there was no feed at Pukeuri. Witness did not know they were coming until they arrived. While Samuels was engaged by Mr Dennison witness did not employ him, nor had he been applied to for payment. To Mr Newton : Witness declined to say what became of the sheep which went to Friston. He believed Mr Dennison sold them. They were taken away by Mr Dennison's shepherd some months after they were taken there. Some of the sheep put on the Pukeuri land were witness's, and those sent to Friston were an equivalent to them. He had seen the amounts which had been p:id to Samuels charged in the accounts sent to Mrs Watson ; but these accounts were not acknowledged by her. He had never told Mr Dennison that he would pay Samuels. To Mr Lee : Witness said that his transactions with Mr Dennison were very numerous and much involved. This was the case for the plaintiff. Mr Newton called the defendant (T. C. Dennison). who denied having entered into an arrangement with the last witness with regard to grazing sheep. The sheep Samuels looked after since the 31st of March were Mrs Watson's sheep. He said to Watson in Samuels' presence, "Have you told Samuels that he i« to look to you for payment?' and Watson said "Yes." It was arranged that no sheep were to be given up by Samuels unless ordered by witness, as he had security over them. To Mr Lee: The reason he had to instruct Samuels was because he had to keep the account as between himself and Mrs Watson. The reason he made the alleged new arrangement with Mr Samuels was that he should look to Mr Watson for payment from that date was because Samuels seemed to look to him for payment. Those which went to Friston were taken without his orders. He did not find out until some days after that they were at Friston. He never told Samuels if he could get the sheep back he would pay him. It was part of Samuels' duty to look after all the sheep there, whether Watson's, or whoever they might belong to. His Worship said the evidence was very conflicting, but there was no doubt that the plaintiff had done the work, and the question then arose as to who was the party liable and he thought the defendant was. He gave judgment for the amount of the claim, with L 4 8s costs.