Magistrate’s Court

Southland Times, Issue 12165, 20 June 1908, Page 1

Magistrate’s Court

FRIDAY, JUNE ISlh

(Before Mr G. Cruickshank, S.M.)

DISPUTE ABOUT ACCOUNTS.

The case Mary Ann Gordon v. William Nairn, a dispute between Otatara residents as to accounts for work done on either side, dating from 1901, was continued. The plaintiff sued for £OO -is Id, but a contra had been put in for £8 14s of which £5 11s 6d was admitted, and defendant had paid into Court £7 11s 7d, so that £l3 Is 3d was the amount in dispute.

Mr A. B. Haggitt appeared for plaintiff and Mr E. Bussell for defendant.

Evidence in support of the claim had been given the previous day by plaintiff, Jno. Gordon, .las, Christie and Angus Gordon. Further evidence was given by Donald Gordon, George Gordon and It. Marshall, the sons of plaintiff with regard to disputed items and Marshall as to the payment usual for' certain farm labour. Defendant gave evidence on his own behalf as to the items disputed, childly as to firewood alleged to have been obtained from plaintiff and as to farm work done by plaintiff’s sons for him. Cross-examined by Mr HaggUL lie admitted having had several disputes previously with other Otatara residents regarding accounts.—His Honour gave judgment for plaintiff tor £'J as Id, less £7 11s 7d paid into Court, hut allowed no costs. This had been arrived at on consideration and assessment of the disputed items in the accounts on both aides on the evidence given on thorn, while one item was struck out as being barred by Hie statutory limit.

A FLAXMILLXNG CONTRACT

In Hie case Win, Mannlon (farmer, Scott's Gap) v. Paul Brown (flaxmilier, tJcott's Gap), adjourned from Otautau for documentary evidence, was a claim of £3l Ss for balance of fiax royaltyowing and £l3 Ss fid for wages. Air V\. A. Stout represented plaintiff and Mr J. Armstead defendant.

Mr Armstead said that the written agreement of contract between the parties which was to have been put into Court had been found to he in Christchurch and therefore could not be produced. He did not, however, press for I further adjournment on ill is. account. Counsel then addressed the Court on the evidence heard at Otautau, and hits Wor■hip found for plaintiff for £3 1 Os on the royalty portion of Hie claim and for £7 (Is Sd on the wages claim, with £(i as m 1 costs.