S.M Court.

Opunake Times, Volume I, Issue 29, 9 October 1894, Page 3

S.M Court.

* Fbiday, sth October. - (Before Major Tuko, Esq., S.M. and t* CK W. Gane, Esq., J.P.) CLAIM FOB WAGES. George Dobbie v. J. Ross ; claim, £ls 12s 6d. T. Monday repeated the evidence given by him at the previous hearing. He considered that Dolbie should have done the work in 30 days. Conf- sidered £5 fair value for labour on the verandah. t ’■ A. O’Brien deposed that he had inspected the building. Two doors had been altered, but the alterations were not neatly done. Did not discover any other altt rations. Considered the value of building the verandah to be worth about £5. Considered that the total labour was worth £BS. The doors should be hung in accordance j with the wishes of the proprietor. By the Bench: It would take a couple of men about 35 days to do tbe work. Mr Ross had offered £5 to settle the matter, and on this being submitted to the plaint'ff he agreed to accept it, each party to pay tbeir own costs. CLAIM FOR FENCING. The hearing of tbo case Mather v. Macßeynolds, which had been adjourned from the previous day, was then resumed. L. Gilmer deposed that he remembered being m the store when Mather and Ebbett called. Heard Mather tell defendant that the day work done on the side line was twenty-one days and a half at 7s per day. Did not hear anything about any other place. Saw defendant making a calculation, and saw him banding over £7 to the plaintiff. Heard him tell Mather to hand it over to the boy that was with him. The boy was standing at the door. Defendant told them that he •would be up on Sunday to inspect the work.

Cross-examined; He bad never spoken to Macßeynolds about it since. Fixed the date at 16th July. Did not know how he came to fix the date.

John De Castro deposed that he was the owner of the section opposite to the one where the fencing in dispute was erected. Was working on his own section while Mather and Ebbett were erecting the fence. Remarked that they had the wrong gate for such a fence. Then told de f endant that "they were using a wrong gate. Also told defendant that a fair and just fence could be erected for 5s per chain. Inspected the fence on the 80th August. Did not find a firstclass fence there. The timber was order the ordinary measurement for a boundary fence. There were three classes of limber—rata, rirau, and puketea. Pnketea, unless it w 7 as the black kind, was not a good fence timber. The wire was not properly strained. Rata posts were “ dozy.” Bimu posts were fair, but battens were not up to the standard. Could point out several posts not propel ly put in. Never saw posts 8 x*B unless in stockyards. Considered the t-ide fence a next to no fence. On the side line there was tubi and other inferior timbers. There was grass on the section, but it bad been eaten by other people’s stock. The length of the front fence was nine chains two links. Cross-examined ; Fixed the 30tb of August by the time of Lis arrival iu Opunakc. Did not consider a threewire fence a safe one; 6x 5 was the wos the ordinary size of the posts used in a boundary fence. Judgment reserved. SIMPSON T. CAMPBELL.

T. C. Simson v. A. Campbell; claim, £79 12s lid. Mr Barton for plaintiff and Mr Scott-Smith for defendant. *■ Thomas Simson deposed that he had sold his bush section to A. Campbell for £SO on October 25th. The sale was effected in his brother’s house. Had had the section in Mr Spurge’s hands for sale, but withdrew it on November 3rd. Defendant had made arrangements with him to fall the bush at 25s peT acre. Had fallen 81£ acres. Defendant also agreed to pay for some gravelling at a contract price of £5 ss. The total claim was £lO4 12s lid, off which £25 in instalments had been paid. Cross-examined by Mr Scott-Smith : Had offered to reduce the claim to £66. On the 25th October the date of the sal*, there were H acres of bush down. The section contained 152 acres. Defendant also bought a section of 200 acres from his brother. There were 12 or 15 acres acres felled on his brother’s section, and his brother received £SO for it. No money passed on 25th October, but received £lO shortly afterwards. Could not say when he received it. Did not recognise receipt for £lO, dated 25th December, 1893, produced. li#olted like his signature, but did not remember signing it. He thought the stamp looked wet still. [At this stage the witness was requested to sign his name, and his Worship, after comparing them, said they were very much alike.] • «He could not swear to the signature on the receipt produced. The contract of £SO was not for the section with the bush felled. Would swear that he did not remember either stamp or receipt. .The item of £5 os for gravelling he would allow if Campbell gave him an acknowledgment which would Indemnify him. Campbell might have paid for part of it without his authority. The item of £1 10s charged for scrubbing had been paid by Campbell, but without his authority. He might be called on to pay for it over again. D. C. Simson deposed : Eemember Campbell purchasing a section from his brother. The arrangement was made in his house. Witness had offered Campbell his homestead at £l2 10s per acre, but he (Campbell) decided on looking for land in the bush. Campbell went and looked at it. Witress asked £SO or £6O for it. In

the evening be and his brother and Campbell wore together, whop he broached the subject again, and defendant bought his section at £SO. His brother asked defendant if he would purchase his, and Campbell replied, “ Yes, I’ll take it.” There was no mention of cutting bush and throwing it in,* It was false to say that Campbell did not buy bis brother’s section until December. Campbell went away and came back in a fortnight, and weut up and saw both sections. They met bis brother on his section, and be understood defend ant to say that he would give 25s an acre to get tbe bush filled. Witness remarked to Lis brothar that he should not be hard on “Aiick,” and at bis suggestion bis brother, after a bit of swealing, gave way and undertook the job. Cross-examined by Mr Scott-Sraith: Defendant bad decided to purchase his section first; then bought ‘’Tom’s” on the same evening. Tin re might have been 25 acres down on his section when be sold it for £SO. Did not consider his section os valuable as bis brother’s. (Document produced acknowledging receipt of £lO on account of tbe sale of his section, which was dated 27th October.) Could not explain the discrepancy in tbe date. It was quite reasonable that £50 # should be given for his brother’s'section, although it was a smaller area, and bad only acres felled, whereas his had twenty acres down. Re-examined : His brother’s section was drier than his, and was at a lower rental, so that it was more valuable. James Baldick corroborated tbe previous witness. There were about five or six acres down on T. Simson’s section when the contract was made. Had been in David Simson’s employ for five or six years. This occurred some time about the middle of November.

D. Simpson was recalled and swore positively that Campbell took possession of both places on the same day.

Mr Scott-Smiih contended that as a bill of particulars had not been supplied to the defendant prior to summons being issued, that defendant was entitled to* a nonsuit, and asked his Worship’s ruling on the point with regard to costs. His client bad offered £55, without prejudice, to settle the matter. '

Mr Barton objected to this being introduced, as being made without prejudice, it had no right to be mentioned.

Mr Scott-Smith: “ Well, we offer it now. Will you accept it ?” Mr Barton replied that they scorned the offer. They must have the full amount now.

A. Campbell, (he defendant, was then called, and deposed : Had heard the evidence given, but could not possibly have bought the sections on the 25th October, as sworn to by'the witnesses. He only arrived in Opunake on the 24th October. On the 25th lie went to D. Simson’s homestead. On the 26th he wont up to see a bush section, and on that day he first saw T. Simson, when they had a general conversation, but not a word was said about purchasing his section. On the 27th, when he D. Simsoh’s section, T. Simson was present. On the 28th October he left for Stratford, having previously made arrangements with D. Simson about getting the bush down on his section. On the 30ih October "he received a telegram from D. Simson informing him that he had put men on at 25s an acre to fall the bush. Had offered, on 27th October, to buy T, Simson’s section on the same terms as ho had purchased the other, which were £lO for goodwill, money out of pocket in procuring the lea c e, and the bush down at that date. D. Simson advised his brother not to sell, as he had been knocking about for 80 years, and now that he would have a good neighbour in “ Alick,” he had better settle down, and there the matter dropped. Subsequently T. Simson again offered him the section, and he bought it, as the receipt showed, on the 25th December, when nearly all the 814 acres of bush had been felled, for £SO. Cross-examined by Mr Barton: Would swear that no sale took place between the 25th and 30th October. Merely went on to T. Simson’s land on 26th October to pay him a friendly visit, as he was a cousin. Was not bis business to consider what it had cost T. Simson, so long as be gave him what he asked.

Mr Barton addressed the Bench, pointing out that -it was highly improbable that his client would offer a place, for which he had paid £l3 6s to obtain the lease, and then expended £4O, besides other amounts, bringing the total outlay up to £7l, for £SO. For the plaintiff, three witnesses had sworn that the sale took place on or about the 25th October, and against this they had only the unsupported testimony of the defendant, with all the improbabilties.

Mr Scott-Smith contended that no sale had taken place until the 25th December, when the £lO binding the bargain bad been paid, and in support of this the receipt was produced. Judgment was given for £35, each party to pay their own costs. Mr Barton stated that they would appeal.