MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 12607, 10 March 1903, Page 7

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Monday, Mabce 9. (Bofore Mr E. H. Carew, S.M.)

James Crombie and Co. v. James EokhoE— Claim M 17s 6d on .a judgment summons,— There was no appearance of defendant, who was ordered to pay tho amount claimed, with costs (ss), on April 2, in default seven days' imprisonment. Powley and Keast v. H. M'Laughlin (Westport).—Judgment was given for piaintiffs, for whom Mr Cooke appeared, -for a-balance of 13s, with costs (!os Gd).

E. Crossan v. Andrew Jamison.-4Claim £5 4s 5d for goods supplied.—Judgment was given for plaintiff, .with costs (25s 6d).—Mi Hay for plaintiff.

Henry Sharp v. Patrick Do'ylc.—Claim £215s lOd for meat supplied.—Judgment for plaintiff for the sum claimed, with costs (69).

Otago Daily Times Company v. Frederick W. Adams (Blenheim).—Claim fl 5s 6d. balanco due for subscriptions for tho Otago Witness.— Judgment for the plaintiff company, with costs (6s). • 1 New Zealand Hardware Company v. Daniel Jones (Westporl).—Claim f27 3s on a. dishonoured promissory note.—Judgment for tho .amount claimed was given iu favour of plaintiffs, with costs (235). ,

Macdougall and Co. v. Patrick Laffey' (Milton).— Claim ill 0s lid ior provisions supplied. —Judgment for plaintiff, with costs (30s 6d).— Mr Hewitt for plaintiffs. "Alex. Palmer v. William Allan (St; Kilda).— Claim £23 14s, balanco due for pigs' food.— Judgment for plaintiff for f'2s 14s, and costs (£4 2s).—Mr Moore for plaintiff, and Mr W. C. MacGregor for defendant.

A. Bsrnott v. J-yfe and Cuming.—Claim £'22 15s for wages and commission.—Hr Findlay appeared for plaintiff and Mr Emslie for defendants.—This caso was concluded, and his Worship reserved judgment.

James Henderson v. Tbos. Stevenson.—Claim £3 7s for work done.—'ln this previously-heard case his Worship gave judgment as follows:— " The claim is for £1 7s for ploughing, harrowing, sowing, and rolling a small paddock on tho Peninsula. The defence is a denial that the deifendant employed plaintiff to do the work, and the further defence that tho claim is excessive. Thero is no proof that tho defendant's man* Thompson was ■ actually authorised to •engage plaintiff to do, the work, but it was admitted by the defendant that ho sent him V> inquire of plaintiff what he would charge. The plaintiff says that Thompson asked'him what he'would charge per acre, and he replied that ho did not plough such little awkward pieces by the acre, but his charge was 16s a day, and it was then arranged betweon them that plaintiff should go and do the work in a few days' time.' He worked five hours on the first day, irnd next morning whilo at work defendant came to him. Plaintiff says that defendant made 110 objection to his doing tho work but asked him what seed he would require, and hetold him'the'quantity, and said lie would bo ready for it on Tlmrsdaymorning. The, defendant told 'plaintiff he did not think anyone had told him to plough the land, and he did it at hi 3 omi responsibility. He admits, Jioiyover, that there wa3 a conversation as to the quantity of seed that would be required and when plaintiff would be ready for it, and 110 also admits that lie subsequently bought the seed in town and sent it out to whoro it w»b used by plaintiff. This is entirely consistent with plaintiff's version of tho conversation as to the seed, and supplying the seed for theivork is sufficient evidence of ratification. In regard to tlio price charged, thoro are two 'witnesses who have worked the land themselves,- and two other witnesses who are ploughmen. All these say the charge, considering the position of the land and nature of the soil, is a reasonable one. On the othor'side there is Mr Duthio, who says the price is too high, but Mr. Duthie is probably more accustomed to contract ploughing of largo areas than n two-acre paddock on the side of a hill. Judgment for plaintiff for £3 7s, costs of court IBs,'witnesses -4Eb, and professional costs 2Gs." ,