R.M. COURT.

Patea Mail, Volume XI, Issue 131, 22 February 1886, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

o Pa TEA—FRIDAY. (Before C. A, Wray, Esq , li.M) Parsons v Charles. Mr G. D. flanier--1 oii appeared for plaintiff. The defendant had wri'.len to the Court asking for an adjournment until he cmilcl get his evidence taken in Wellington. Mr Hamerton objected, on bMi df of the plaintiff, to an adjournment as no possible good could come of it. Adj aimed for a week, Gr.lX IJ.arnertoi) v W.Oil^ory.—-Claim Tor professional services in obtaining defendant’s discharge under bankruptcy. Air Hamerton proved tho due completion of the services claimed for, and produced the ordoi of discharge duly sealed by the Court, and also proved duo service M the account claimed. Mr Adams, who appeared for tho defendant, applied for a non-suit on the grounds that the whoie of the account was not included in tho amount sued for, and that an order having been made by a superior Court that li e costs should bo paid out of the estate this Court had no power to gdve judgment against tho defendant, his friend’s proper course beirur clearly against Mr Corkill, tho Deputy Official Assignee for the estate. Mr Hamerton combating this view, said his friend had evidently mixed up common law and statute law, with regard to tho v;hole of tho bill of costs, and had overlooked tho fact that New Zealand had made statute laws of its own respecting bankruptcy, which laws laid clown distinc;tiy tho method of dealing with the question of costs. Mr Odgers was the on’y man who had employed him in the matter of his discharge, and was, lie (Mr II.) considered, the only person whom he could sue for the amount. His Worship thought the proper way would bo to apply to the Deputy-Official Assignee, ‘and if tho amount was not then paid, to apply to the District Court on that behalf. He would adjourn the case for a month in order that some such course may be adopted. Quinlan, Mandor and Co. v. Patrick McGrath.—(Haim on balance of account, LlO 10s 61. Mr Hamerton appeared for plaintiff. Defendant conducted hi-j own ease. Defendant having filed a sM-off in excess of the claim, became plaintiff, and on being sworn said he was a farmer and contractor living at Waverley. With reference to tho first, item in Uic set-off, L 5, ho was at Waverley sale on the 12th April lasi, when some cattle (40 bui'o.‘ks) of Death’s wore yarded and passed in. Ho saw Mr Quinlan, who asked him to keep the bullocks on his farm until next sale. Ho (defendant) replied ho was short of grass, but: to oblige plaintiffs he would do so. Tho cattle wore start to his farm, and remained there 14 days, for which lie charged Is per week per heath L 4, and it's per week for herding; them, as he had to keep a young man to look after them, Tho item on the 14th September was for grazing 10U0 sheep for (hat night. Plaintiffs sent them down by their man. ho gave them liberty to do so. Tho item Gs was for assisting to draft the sheep at tho sale yards. The 'tern fit is for carting grass soc-d from Nicholson’s farm at IVhennakura to plaintiffs’ auction mart, and the item LI 6s is cash lent to Mr Quinlan at Ivakarainca. Cross-examined by Mr Hamcrlon ; The charge of L 5 for grozitut tho bullocks is a fair charge. I saw Mr Quinlan at Wnverley about them. 1 knew they were Death’s cattle before the} 7 went onto my place. I had a conversation with Davis when he came for (ho cattle ; lie disputed the number. I did not know whose cattle (hey woro when they went away. I swear distinctly 1 never said anything to Davis about them being Death’s cattle. I came into Quinlan’s office many times since tho cattle wore there. 1 never said anything to him about payment for tho graz'ng. 1 have received accounts from the firm. 1 have had one like the one produced : L2 is credited there for feet] for the bullocks, but I was not satisfied with L2. I never asked in writing for any sum for feeding those bullocks. I saw Quinlan many times at Waverley ami elsewhere, but never said any tiling about this charge. Tho charge for depasturing the sheep is reasonable ; it is Id per head for the night. I did not count the sheep on the farm, but I know how many plaintiffs sold that day, and that is how I know how many woro on the farm. I don’t remember .any conversation with Quinlan about these sheep. I don’t remember saying ho could wend them down for nothing ; I should not bn likely to do that. I assisted to take the sheep to the sale, and to tlrai't them when there. I was employed by Mr Davis, who said he had auihority to employ any labour lie required. I took nothing of my own tip that day, not a hoof. I remember Nicholson’s sale ; I had not my cart there, I did not tell Quinlan I was coming into town with it next day, and bring the grass seed in for him. I never made a living as a carrier. This closed defendant’s case. Plaintiff, sworn, said ho was a member of the firm of Quinlan, Mandor, and Co., auctioneers at Patea and Waverley. The 40 bullocks mentioned wore sent onto defendants farm on his offer to graze them for nothing. They were passed in at tho sale, and ho said “ you can send them to my place till next sale ; it will cost yon nothing.” He (plaintiff) never saw him about the catllo again. The sheep referred to were not 1000, but about 577. McGraTi was in (own when plaintiff said he was sending tho sheep to Waverley sale, and ho said they had hotter come down (lie night before, and stop at his (defendants) place, so as to bo fresh for the sale, and defendant would not charge for them. Davis took them down. He never employed defendant (o draft sheep, as ho never required his services. McGrath saw him at Nicholson's salo, and said lie was coming into town on Saturday with his dray so lie (plaintiff) asked him to bring in the seed. Nothing, whatever was said about payment. Cross examined by McGrath . I may have sold over a (lions,and sheep on the day in question, as M - Goff Dickie put 404 head into that sale. I consider £2 a fair price for 40 2-yoar olds for a fortnight, and 2s per TOO per night for sheep for any nnmber’ovor 500. J. Mander, sworn, said : Ho was a member of the firm of Quinlan, Mandor, and Co, and remembered the sheep sale referred to, There were. 500 odd sheep sent onto McGrath’s for one night. It was not possible for there to bo a thousand. Davis drafted them out. He had credited McGrath with L2 for the grazing of the steers, so that tho claim for L 5 could not on any account be correct. The firm were not in the habit of employing extra hands to yard stock at Waverley, Cross-examined by McGrath; I remember you speaking to me about tho cattle. ■ I told you the firm had credited you with L2 and you appeared perfectly satisfied. H. I. Davis, sworn, proved tho number of sheep taken to McGrath’s to be 577, behaving counted and driven them ; and gave evidence as an expert as to the usual charge for grazing sheep and cattle

which ho stated to bo LI nor 1000 for sheep per iii«>-ht, and Gd per head per week for average stock. In giving jndcavit j[M Worship said it wna a pny the en.-;o had over been in-ought, inio Court, It was very evident ‘ho pi am tills were at ail times perfectly willing to settle amicably on most liberal term He thought the. L2 allowed by by plaintiff for the cattle grazing was lair, and ho woo'd allow Pis for the sheep, and KM for carting the grass seed, in all 225, Judgment would bo entered for tiie plaintiffs for L 9 3s Gd, and costs, L2 16s. The (Joint thou adjourned.