RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1548, 3 February 1887, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Geraldine—Tuesday, Feb. 1,1887. [Before H. 0. S. Baddeley, Efq., R.M.,. and the Rev. G. Barolay and W. U. Slack, Esq*., CIVII CASES. R.Scott v. W. Shiers—Claim sb, for groomage in coooection with the 1 entire horse "Trump Card." ,; Plaintiff stated that defendant bad offered him 5a extra to look after his mare weirduringthe,a(hP"-. / Defendant, Bvyoru, e .ad tb*t he, had made his arrangements with the owner of the horse, Mr' Mundell, and not 1 with plaintiff. His Arrangement was for so much, without anything about groomage. He had expected that plaintiff would have a little trouble, and be promised to give him 5s extra if ha did his best to get the mare in foal.' He was quite willing to pay it when 'the mare 1 was proved in foal. . J. Murjdell, sworn, said that plaintiff had put the mare into his hands to work regularly and Bell' 1 her'; if he could'get a good, price. -, Plaintiff had made, special arrangements with regard to the' service of two other mares. Any arrangement he made was tfpatt IrM] thegroomage, which h^neyer.had'anything tO do with. The grooms attended "to it. ! Judgment was v given for the Amount claimed and costs. , - r ,,' i jJ. S, fcir goods supplied. q |Same v.' J. ! Kensington—Claim £l l7s 'id. , ' : •■";■• ■ .. <t iJudgment by,default in 'both caseß for' the amount claimed and eoets. ' '"" . Watereaux y.J.J; £6 3s for, and.,the keep of a chijd. JWgmen,t, summons. : ~!'.„ Mr Raymond;fjor plaintiff and (Hamerßley and WoK>d)for defendant.... Defendant stated, that he worked at Mr Buttons mill at IsUper hour. He-had been with Mr Button from four toifivc years. He was qtlite willing to pay if he was allowed time to do so. 1 He. had not been" able to, work "constantly owing to illpess *n,d bafl Weather. He was ,hbt at work; how, qwjng : to„ ; Mr But'on!s mill 1 being stopped.. Jp had been endeavoring to get work since he had been, out. The mill wbb stopped iui order that it might go! threshing. -He would go with it when it commenced. The amount was ordered to be paid within 48 hours or defendant to go to gaol for a week. " - ' I R.H. Pearpoint v. J. Ellen—Claim £2 7s Id. Judgmenj; summons. Plaintiff stated that the account had been owing for' three years. He proved that defendant had since been in a position to pay. . An order was made for the amount to be paid within three days, iQ default one month's imprisonment. E. Johns v. C.^Ramble—Claim 10s. Mr Raymond for plainMff. 'Mrs-Johns, sworn, said defendant and she were neighbors.'' A box of bees'be* lonjging to her had swarmed on September 10th, and. settled about a foot on "Mr, Ramble's land.--W.hile .she went to get a box Mrs Rambleibad; got a.bqx and foaken the bees. The value of trie bees was lOo}, ToMr Ramble 7 : It was about 1 o'clock' that the bees swarmed and about a quarter, of 1 an hour afterwards |hey were! ftived. , G. Stokes, sworn, said tint on September 10th he bad seen the bees coming from plaintiff's hive, and he .called,Mrs Johns' attention: to them: He saw them ■light on defendant's land. He after* wards went with plaintiff to ask for the bees'.' '''''.■" To'defendant: I am sure they were ibe same bees. . •E, Johns, sworn, said he knew.defend,. ant, he bad no ;bees. to his knowledge,, He went to defendant with Stores aid asked fofctfae bees but defendant refused to give them up. iHe valued th©ibees at 10s. ' '-...• Mr Ramble stated that he did own bees and had done so for several years Mrs Ramble, sworn, said 'that on the morning in question Hhe had been watching her own bees, She saw them swarm out of her own hive, and settle on her, own land, when she put them in a hive. After hiving them them for. an hour and a-half. ; . - 0 To Mr Raymond: I bad watched the. bees for three days as I expected them to swarm* I did not " tin" them, there being no necessity to do bo as they settled at once. 1 The Bench were of opinion that Mrs Ramble bad simply made a mistake as to the' bees being hers. They did not believe for a moment that she intended to do wrong. The judgment wouldbe for the amount claimed, with costs of. Court and a witness' expenses. T. Farrell v. E. J. H. Fox---01aim £ls 10s. Mr Raymond for plaintiff, Mr Wood for defendant. ~; This was a disputed account, and after some considerable discussion the magistrate suggested that the paHjes should retire for a short time to see if they could come to some arrangement. /Thißwas done, and'the parties agreed to allow a judgment for £5 to be entered against fox provided another case Fox v. Farrell for £3 88 were withdrawn. Both parties to pay their own costs. E. J. H. b'ox v, R; Taylor—Claim £3 Bs, for service of an entire horse.' Mr Wood appeared for plaintiff. Defendant proved that the contract for the service of the horse had not been carried out. Plaintiff pointed out that he was unable to fulfil his contract aB the horae bad been locked up by another person and he oou'd not get it. His Worship remarked that no doubt it was a great hardship to Fox, but it would be harder on Taylor to have to pay. The fact of his horse having been locked up would no doubt have considerable weight on Fox's side in the event of another case. Judgment was accordingly given for defendant with cost?. 1. Clayton v. W. B. Comp*on—Claim £5 189 6d. Judgment summons. Defendant offered to pay the amount in instalments of £1 per month, which offr was accepted and an order made accordingly. This being all the business the Court adjourned.