RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 2811, 26 September 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT.

TlMAßTJ— Tuesday, Sept. 25. (Before J. Beswiek, Ejq., E.M., and T. W. Hall and W. 0. Fendall, E-qrj., J.P.'s.) Three personß were fined for drunkenneei. Duncan Gould, who excused him?o!f by saying it was six months since ho hnd bee Din town, was fined ss; John White, a seaman, who was fined 6s only the day before for the tamo offence, wns fined 10s ; and Mary Cunningham, m olil offender, was fined sa, nod warned that if the came up egiin within any short time, she would be cent to gaol as a vagrant. CIVIL CASE 3. . In tho following cases judgment was given for plaintiffs, by default : — Phoenix Brewing Company v. G. Cliff, claim £3 16j 6d, costs 8j i J. Hill and 00. t. Jaa Rodgers, claim £3 19j Gd, coßts lls ; game T. Jas. Orafer, claim £5 13s 2d, costs 12a ; E. G. Kerr r. G-. K. DO, clnirn £15 4s, coats £1 ; Maclean and Stewart v. G. Rickard, claim £95 lls, balance of account, oosts 18s, solicitor's fee £3 33 ; samo t. same, claim £51 12b, dishonored promißsory note, costs £1 18), solicitor's fee £3 3i (Mr Hamorsley fjr plaintiffs). R, Munro v. J. Thompson — Claim £7 Ba, judgment summon*. Ordered to poy 6s per week, 'm default 14 days' imprisonment. WiMie, Allan and Stumbles v. A. Bennett — Claim £17 15?, judgment summons. Mr White appeared for plaintiffs and examined the debtor, eliciting the fact that be was a dairyman, managing a farm and cows belonging to hia wife, and the claim was for feed supplied for thesa cows. Defendant excused himself from paying on the ground that one member of the firm, Mr Wildie, owed him more than he owed tho firm, but he could not find him. He was ordered to pay at the rate of 5s per week, m default 14 days. A. St. G. Hamoraley r. H. Green and others— Claim £24 Oi lid, for professional service?. M> White for defendants. The defendants m this case wers H. Green, B. Allan, G. Stumbles, and J. Ralph, the former owners of the schooner Young Dick, and the claim was for professional work done m connection with that vessel. The plaintiff was cross-examined by Mr White as to whether Mr Green, the managing partner m the vessel, had not settled the account by giving him a chronometer, valued by Mr Green m Court at £30. Plaintiff said Mr Green gave him a chronometer, but not m settlement of the account. He took tha instrument when it was handed to him, but it was absolutely valueless to him, and h» gave it back as soon as he found oth«r persona besides Mr Green had an interest m it. He did not knovr exactly why it was given to him, it was not given m paymeot or part payment of the account. The defendants Oreoi, Stumble*, snd Ralph were examiued, but the first ooull not rcnember his transactions with Mr Hamer*ley at all clearly, and Die other two knew very little about them. The Bench gave judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed, subject to taxation, and costs £1 ss. P. Cunningham and Co, t. Bell— Claim £11 19a 9d, for seed oats supplied m August. 1881. ■ X Mr Himersley for plaintiffs, Mr White for defendant. This eaee was partly heard tome time ago, and adjourned for the production of further witnesses. The defendant disputed a claim for the price of seed oats, on the grjund that tho eeed yraa bad, and did cot grow at aH satisfactorily. Mr Hameraley now called witnesses to show that other psople had been supplied with seed from tho same lot, and had obtained satiafactory crops. The storemin, W. Pratt, proved that Messrs McLaren, MeKerrow and Park, were supplied with seed oats from the same stack of bags as Bell, and McLaren and Park stated that tboj gJt satisfactory crops. His Worship inj giving judgment Ba,id it was proved that the defendant's crop came up very " patchy," but it was also proved that the season was a very dry one, and that similar seed had turnedjout satisfactorily with other farmers, and no evidence was adduced tfeat the seed was absolutely bad. Tha Bench, m view of all tha ciroumstancei, felt bound to give judgment for the plaintiffs. Judgment accordingly, with cost 9£2 It, and solicitor's fee,£L li. Robt. Wilkin and Co. v. J. Y. WardClaim £20 7s. Mr Tosswill for plaintiff), »ud Mr White for defendant. This was a claim for the Talue of 103 bushels of oats and half a toa of bran which plaintiffs, by Mr 0. Bourn, alleged was sold to defendant, and forwarded by hia instructions to one Finlan at Ealing. Defendant, a. commission agent, denied that he purchased the goods, asserting that he only ordered them as agent for Finlan. There was a dirtct conflict of evidence as to what occurred when tba oHer was given, and, looking at the probabilities of the case, the Bench gave judgment for plaintiffs with costs £1 6s, and solicitor's fee £2 2s. (Before J. Beswick, Esq., R.M.) B. H. Rhodes r. A. Davis— Claim £94 18s lOd. Mr Perry for plaintiff, Mr White for defendant, Tho plaintiff's side m this caso was heard on the 4lh mat., and the case was then adjourned to allow His Worship to consider a point of jurisdiction raised by Mr White. This point was settled, and the case ynt called on again last Friday, but defendant not being present, it was definitely fixed to be continued yesterday. Tho defendant, however, did not appear, and, m hii absence, Mr White said he could not proceed, and judgment was accordingly given for the plaintiff by default, with costs £3 and solicitor's fee £3 3s. T. Hampson v. J. G. Allen — Claim, £5 10« 6d, balanco of account for work and labor done. Mr Hamersley appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr White for defendant. Plaintiff, it appeared from hia evidence, had done some asphalting for the defendant at the Belford Flour Milla, and had been paid so much on aocount, delendant drclining to hand over the balance until he (the plaintiff) had, he said, properly finished tho job,— that was.madetheasphaltwork perfectly watertight. Mr M. de U. Duvul was culled by the defendant, and stated that what was needed w*s that the plaintiff should give the asphalt one or t wo good top dressings of tsr. His Worship eaid tlie best way would be for Mr Hamersley to accept a nonsuit, and that tho parties should endeavor to come to aome arrangement for fiuishi-g the work. This Mr Hamer.lev agreed to do, and the plaintiff was accordingly nonsuited with L'Oft*. W. C. Fendall t. W. Ogilvie— Claim, £71 3a 6d, damages for breach of contract stc. Mr Toiswill for the plaintiff, and Mr O. Perry for defendant. Mr Tosswill euid this action had been brought by his client to recover damages from defendant, who waa a threshing machine proprietor, for breach of contraot. The facts were shortly those. On or about the 17th April Issr, Ogilrie agreed with Fendall's manager to thresh aome wheat, oats, md barley; agreeing to oome from Fraßera, a farm a few miles distant, where he was then busy, to plaintiffs Earm. Tho evidence wonld show that he h»d not carried out his contract. In oonsequenc* 3f this Fondall had had to engage anothtr man to do tho work, and also that thrsagh tno «tuff not being threshed at th» time agreed

on, had suffered material damage. He called H. T. Fcndall, who ?aid he waa mannger for his father (the plaintiff). He remembered speaking ro Ogilvie m April last about throshing the wheat, oats and barley. Ogilvie, after they had arranged terras, agreed lo come to the farm as soon us be had finished the job he was at. He told witness that he had about a week's work ; that at tbe time he wa» working at Paul's, and had yet to finish SVaier's. When the week had expired ho (witness) went down to Fraser's to Bee Ogilvie, but on arrival there found that the machine and men were not there. On the 19th May he caw Ogilvie m Timaru, and on asking him why he bad not coma out to tbe farm to do the threshing, he answered bocause his man objected to come. On the 31st May the machine came to Frnser's farm, and on that day witness went down there and aiked the engine driver whether they were coming to his farm next, and was told they were not ; that they wcro engaged to go to another farm. He tried all ho could to get defendant to come, but he would not, siying that he could not get bis men to go to the farm owing to its being m such a wet state. There were two stacks of barley, two of oat?, and two of wheat. The barley and oats were not injured before they were stacked, but the wheat was, slightly. On the 29th of April a great rain came on. Up to this time the barley and oats were not injured, and if the machine had came at the time agreed on (the 17th April), the grain would hare been threshed and done nttb, and no damage would have been incurred. After he found Ogihio would not come, he tried to get other men but could not. Owing to the heavy rain ifc was impossible for a week or two to get a machine on to the farm, tho ground being so very wet. The grain was eventually threshed by a man named Moore, m August, he witness, boing unable to secure another machine before that lime. Tho heavy rain had considerably damaged all the grain, a lots of about £65 being incurred on it. In eonsequonco also of th» giain not being threshed, a considerable sum had to be spent by the plaintiff to provide fodder for stock. To Mr Perry : The defendant wbb at Paul's when he Bpoke to him about doing the threshing. Ogilvie said he had a week's work where he was. Did not tell him that ha bad to go to two or three other places before he could come and do the work. Witness had spoken to Jefcoate about doing the threshing, but after teeing him ones or twice he declined doing the work unless be got paid by the hour for it. Plaintiff's farm is not very isolated, but still it would not be worth while for anyone to coma from a distance to threek what little there was. As it was, Ogilvio was threshing within three miles of the place, and it wonld have been very little trouble for him to have gone the distance. He had made enquiries from ono named Patterson about a machine, but could not get it, because the elevators were broken, and the men were also afraid to shift (he machine owing to the wet state of the ground where it was. He had done all be could to save the stacks from damage, both before and after the rain. At this stage His Worship decided to adjourn tbe cats to Tuesday next.