Magistrate's Court.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XIX, Issue 5982, 27 June 1894, Page 3

Magistrate's Court.

YESTERDAY. (Before Major Keddell, S.M.) C'ark Bros. v. A. J. Atkinson, claim L245s 6d for threshing. Mr Harvey for the plaintiff and Mr Lee (HisJop and Creagh) for the defence. Plaintiff's case being closed, Mr Lee called Mrs A. Atkinson, who stated that one of the firm of Clark Bros, came to the house when her son was out, and she told him that her son was out, but that she would deliver the message. He told her the terms and she said her son would write to him. She denied having engaged the mill. She had let the farm to her son. To -Mr Harvey: She had financed her son. There was no proper lease drawn up. He had used her implements. Ernest Atkinson said that he was cropping his mother's form for two years up to 31st March. "Witness saw James Clarke while the mill was at Mr R. P. Hay's. Witness asked them to go to him next, but Clarke said be was going to Totara first. He went again and saw Clarke, and arranged the price's. Nothing was said about whose crop it was. A month after receiving the account he wrote to Clarke Bros, «nd told them he was in difficulties. Then Alexander Clarke came to see him, and durini conversation he arranged to give 60 bags of oats at 5s per brig. To Mr Harvey : When he went to Mr Hay s he knew there had been a conversation between one of the firm and his mother. He went to see if they would come. His mother told him what the price would be. He had spoken to Clarke on the show ground a month before ho went to see his mother. He was one of the first to arrange for bringing their mill into the district. This was all the evidence, and his Worship said that, in face of the evidence, it was impossible for the plaintiff to recover, and gave judgment for defendant, with L2 15s costs. William and James Tlussell v. James ilkie, claim 1/4 103 3d. Mr Harvey appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr Roll for the defendant. Eight shillings costs had been paid into Court, and there was a setoff of L2 5s lid. William Russell said that he had made arrangements with defendant to taice 12 live sheep from him and give him dead ones for them. He was to have the fat, etc., for killing them. He gave defendant 14 sheep altogether on different occasions. There was a heifer he sold to defendant for L 3 12s 6d. Of the sheep he gave defendant, some cost him lOi and some 6s each. To Mr Roll: The heifer was one of two witness bought at a sale. Both were about the same size. There was no had feeling between him and defendant. When Mr Wilkie brought the prices down to such an extent that°no one could live, he had told the slaughterman that, if he continued to slaughter for Wilkie, he need not slaughter for witness, 'ne of the 12 sheep he got from Wilkie was unfit to kill, and he returned it to him. The sheep he took from Wilkie were worth about 6s 6d each. A. Wilkie gave evidence as to the sheep he delivered to defendant on behalf of Russell Bros. To Mr Roll: He had previously killed for Wilkie as well as Russell and Bisset, but as they objected to his killing for Wilkie, he had to refuse to kill for him. He would not swear that he did not say that the sheep Russell sold were unfit for dogs' meat. He did not remember. He had killed sheep for Wilkie previous to Russell taking the 12 of the same from him. They were medium sheep. Wm. Bisset said he saw the sheep Russell had from Wilkie and he was surprised that Russell had them in the shop. There was no comparison between them and those which were given in exchange. John Aitcheson, shopman for Russell Brothers, said that he heard the agreement between the parties which was sheep for sheep. The skins and fat were to be given to Russell for slaughtering. This was the case for plaintiff. Mr Roll called James Wilkie, who said that he purchased a heifer at the sale yards from Russell. It was the largest of two heifers. No arrangement was made as to delivery. It went with Russells' cattle to the slaughter yards to be killed. He expected it to be killed and delivered to him killed next day, but owing to the refusal to kill for him he did not get it. He was to have paid L 3 12s 6d for it. With regard to the sheep, he had sold them to Russell for 8s 9d each, and as he had not paid the N.Z. Loan and Mercantile Agency Co. they charged Russell for them. Russell complained about the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Company charging for them, and witness agreed to take carcases for them. He had received sheep worth only 5s each for his, and no tongues, fat, or skins. He had not received the heifer. To Mr Harvey: He had agreed to pay L 4 rather' than allow the case to go to Court. His Worship said ho did not, as counsel for the defence did, attribute this claim to trade jealousies. With regard to the heifer the evidence was veiy conflicting and the defendant did not explain it as he might have done. He gave judgment for the balance, LI 17s lid, with 18s costs. Mr Harvey applied for solicitor's fee and witnesses' expenses, His Worship allowed Mr Harvey 21s and 7a each for thrM witneasefl.