Magistrate's Court.

Southland Times, Issue 14800, 17 November 1900, Page 3

Magistrate's Court.

Friday, 16th November. Before Mr S. E. McCarthy, S. M. . ■ DISPUTED COMMISSION. The hearing of the claim R. Meek (Fairfax) v. Tothill, Watson and Co, for £100, was continued, and evidence for the defence given by George Ross. The hearing was then adjourned till next week for argument. RETENTION OF A COW. Elizabeth Ferrier v. R. Meek was a claim for £12, value of a cow and heifer. A counter-claim was put in for £8 18s. — Mr J. F. Lillicrap for plaintiff; Mr Wm. Macalister for defendant. - The plaintiffs case was that in November, 1899, her husband went to defendant's farm and purchased a cow for her. The defendant's son brought the cow to plaintiffs place and was paid £4 on account of £8, which was the price arranged. Something was said about grazing, and the defendant's son said that the cow could graze in their paddock free of charge, as they had plenty of grass which was going to waste. Plaintiff milked the cow until July of this year, when it was on the point of calving. The animal was left in the paddock, and plaintiff's husband could see it every day as he passed. About the end of July he noticed that the cow was not in the paddock, and on asking Meek the reason the latter said lie claimed the cow on account of money due to him by Ferrier and Forbes. The balance of "the purchase money had been paid by an order on A. and D McPherson for £6 15s. which included £2 15s for chaff. Plaintiff also made a demand for the cow, but the defendant made the same statement as before and declined to give up the animal. —Evidence was given by David Ferrier and the plaintiff.— The defence was that the balance due on the cow (£4) had not been paid, and that plaintiff was entitled to pay a reasonable amount for grazing. — Evidence was given by the defendant, who said he had no recollection of receiving the order on A. and D. McPherson for £6 15s. If he had received it it had never been paid. — The hearing was adjourned to allow of evidence being given for the plaintiff as to whether the order had been presented and paid. WAOES CLAIM. D. McCormack sued W. H. Ellis for £1 5s as wages. His Worship said that as defendant practically admitted that the money was owing, judgmeut would be for the amount, with 6s costs. NO DEFENCES. Judgments were given for plaintiffs in J. H. Geddes v. Walter Robb (Orepuki) for £1 15h, costs 6s ; Broad, Small and Co. v. John Maloney (Wreys Bush) for £2 1 8s, costs lUs. '