DISTRICT COURT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXVIII, Issue 7971, 24 February 1906, Page 5

DISTRICT COURT.

MASTERTON—FRIDAY.

(Before His Honor Judge

Haselden).

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. John Wishart Murray claimed from Handyside, Roberta and Co., sheepfarmers, at Akitio, the Bum of £SO damages for wrongful dismissal. MrR. M. Tate appeared for plaintiff, audi .Mr L. O. Tripp >f or the defendant* The facts ofi the case, as outlined by the plain,tifr' in his evidence, were that ne was employed by the de fendaut cosapany to watch the boundaries, as so. many sheep were missing at shearing time. The salary he received was £7O per annum. He kept a diary in which he reoorded all his movements day by day, and in September, 1904, he played in a football match, and received injuries necessitating his being laid un for t.h,ree weeks. Mr Handyside was not aware of the occurrence until a week after the injuries Wer"e received, and then he was ah'nb'ye'd ufc plaintiff not informing hiriul. Softie tJtbe afterwards plaintiff wenr, to Glencotf in search of scrub cutters that were wanted on the station, and was detained at that place owing to the nvera being flooded. Plaintiff returned with difficulty to the station, and in the meantime the sheep had been straying on the"burn"from which plaintiff had instructions to keep them. Mr Handyside summoned the plaintiff to him, and gave him his cheque, as he said "it was not good enough" allowing the sheep to wander on to the "burn." Mr Handyside refused to give the plaintiff any compensation in lieu of notioe.

Robert McKinnon, William Pickett, Frank Fulcher, and Philip Brady were called, and all testified that it would have been unsafe"for plaintiff to have attempt id to.oross the rivers on the occasion in question.

Mr Tripp said that the point of bis defence was whether the defendant was justified in dismissing plaintiff, and he submitted that he was, on the grounds that plantiff. disobeyed a lawful order. Plaintiff was only a weekly servant, and the fact of bis going away to a football match and being ill for a week without informing the manager of the station was sufficient grounds for his being dismissed. John Stewart Handyside, manager for ; the firm of Handyside, Roberts and Co., sheepfarmers at Akitio, gave a brief summary of plaintiff's duties. Witness was quite aware that plaintiff way laid up from September 3rd to September 25th as the result of being hurt at a football matob, and he paid him full wages for that period. On July 24th following witness gave plaiutiff specific instructions to keep the sheep off the "burn," but this he neglected to flo. Plaintiff did not say anything about being detained through the rivers being in tlocd. ,On July 21st witness offered defendant his wages to date (since paid into Court), but this offer was refused. By Mr Tate: Witness did not deny that when he offered plaintiff his wages in full it was tantamount to a dismissal. It might easily have been raining at Glencoe, and not at Akitio, but plaintiff made no men tion of being detained at the former place owing to floods. Lawrenoe Oowau, assistant manager of the station, stated that he had instructions to keep the sheep off the "burn," and he told plaintiff to do so. This plaintiff failed to do, and at the time that plaintiff said he could not cross the river witness orossed it with ease.

Dunoan McLeod, head stockman, at the station, also gave corroborative, evidence, and after hearing legal argument, His Honour reserved judgment.

DISPUTE OVER A SALE OF LAMBS.

A case arising out of the purchase of a number of sheep, was beard Between Nehemiab Mcßae of Tinui, sheepfarmer, and Eobert Johnston, of Masterton, 'farmer. Mr P. L. Hollings appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr C. A. Pownall. for the defeudant.

The facts, as outlined by the counsel for the plaintiff, were that on November 4th defendant purchased from plaintiff 380 Southdown lambs, at 10s per head, and entered into a contract to take delivery of same during the first week in Januiry, 1906. The defendant had not paid for the Jambs, and had failed to take delivery of the same, and in consequence of this failure to take delivery, as agreed, plaintiff had bad sustained damages in the loss of his grass and in the injury caused to his remaining stock. The total claim was for £240, viz., £l9O the price of the lambs, and £SO damages sustained in defendant not taking delivery of the stock.

Plantiff, in his evidence, stated that on Novembor 3rd Mr J. Ewart stopped him in Masterton, and stated that be had heard witness bad some Southdown lambs for sale, and asked what he wanted for them. Witness said he wanted 10s per head and no rejections, -and delivery would have to bo taken in the first week in January. In answer to a question by Mr Ewart, witness said the lambs were looking well, but they onuld not be expected to be as good as those coming off good Euglish grass and flat country. Witness did not say anything at the time about there being any "fats" in the flock. The next day Mr Ewart drove to plaintiff's property, and told plaintiff that the had sold the flock to defendant. There was a oontract drawn up then and there, but it was not signed b.7 defendant until a later date. As soon as defendant signed it, Mr Ewart said he would forward the agreement back to plaintiff. The signed contraot was ultimately received. On December 30th witness saw Mr Ewart, who asked how the lambs were looking. Witness replied, "Fairly well, but not as good as previous years." Mr Ewart then said that he could not obtain the same price for the lambs as be had when he sold them to defendant. On the date arranged, January 12th, plaintiff drove the lamba to Mr Groves' yards, as arranged, and when Mr Ewart and defendant came upon the scene they reckoned the

— ■—j ——— lambs were not luoking well, and refused to take them. Witness theft took the lambs back home. As a farmer, he knew [there was a fall in the market between the dates of the arranging of the sale and when delivery should have been taken. But be could not state the price ruling for lambs at the latter period. His opinion of the flock was that they were a well grown lot, and, with the exception of from 5 per cent, to 10 per cent., they were fit for rape in January. By Mr Pownall: On January 12tb, the date for the delivery of the lambs, only 3.n0 of thnm were Gk for rape. When witness saw thai; defendant did not like the lambs, ho gave him the right to take out rejects, but defendant refused to, da this. At Groves' yards Mr Ewart did not tell witness that the lamba were misrepresented, nor that they were a disgrace to any farmer. Prior to the sale through Mr Ewart* witness had offered the same lambs to a neighbour lor 10a each* with 5 per cent, of rejects. Alexander Gordon PUmer, agent, stated thar flo fl 3vV 'abodfe 2oflf" 0* t.SD iambi lil October, but, albh6ugii.)ie>did tldfe make a elose examination, iid'Mff iUfit ihej? were f ait average Jamba. John Harding TafcbaiHj Sheep* farmer, of Homowood, stated that he saw about 80 of the lambs in December, and his opinion was that thes were a good class, and, as a flock, of fair size. He thought that 10 per cent, should be taken frcm the flock as rejoots. This was not a high percentage. He thought that they would be fit for rape, in January. There was a fall in the price of lambs of about la 6d be-. tween November and January. David Guild, sheepfarmer, stated that he inspected the sheep on February 12. Three hundred of them were very fair lambs and the balance were "culls." If he had bought them as a "fair lot" or "well grown" he would o°rtainly have rejected about 85 of the ' number. He did not consider them as a flock fit for rape in January, and if he ware the purchaser he would not have takea thorn as "rape lambs.' Henry Toogood, sheepfarmer, stated that he inspected the flock during the first week in February, and they were not, f in his opinion, well gro-vu lambs fit for rape. Mr Pownall, for the defence, stated that when Mr Ewart sold the lamoß for plaintiff he represented them to defendant as being fully grown and fit for rape, and be got bis descript'on of , them from plaintiff. Further, in Mr Groves yards defendant offered to take the lambs with a certam\number rejected, as not being in a rape state, but plaintiffs reply was "take the lot or none at all." James Ewart, stock agent stated that on November 3rd plaintiff told him that he had some Southdown cross lambs for sale. He said he wanted 10s 6d per head, with 10 per cent, rejects, but it would be better if a buyer would agree to pay 10s per head and take the lot. Plaintiff distinctly said that they were good well grown lambs, fit fur lape, but he could not guarantee any "fats.'* The present lambs, plaintiff said, were as good as some fot which he had obtained 13a and 12s last year. Witnessi then went to defendant the next day, and told him exactly what bad happened. Defendant asked witness if he thought plaintiff was a fair man, as it was too far to go to plaintiff's property and inspect the sheep. Witness replied that he had every reason to think that plaintiff was a fair man, so defendant instructed witness to buy. On December 30th plaintiff told defendant that the lambs were a good well grofcn lot and fit for rape, and that he would not expect him to take those that were really poor. On January 11, at Groves' yard, witness saw the sheep, and he told plaintiff that they were not the sheep represented to him by the plaintiff. . Dei fendant made the same remark, and plaintiff combated the statements. Defendant further said that he was willing to take all those lambs that to plaintiff's representation and not the small ones. Plaintiff would not hoar of this, and said defendant would have to take the lot or none at all. Witness' opinion regarding the flock was that only between 150 and 200 came up to anything approaching the definition of good well-grown lambs and fit for rape. Defendant, in his evidence, corroborated the evidence of the last witness regarding the representation of the lambs, and his refusing to take delivery of them. Judgment was given for defendant, with costs as per scale. SETTLED OUT OF COURT. The case William Roigara v. Hoffeins Bros., which arose in respect to sale negotiations iu connection with the Maurioeville Hotel, in which the plaintiff claimed £2OO, deposit money and damages t for breach of contract, was settled out of Court. The chief terms of the settlement are that the sum of £IOO is to be refunded to plaintiff, plaintiff to receive valuation for the list of stock taken by Brooks and Home, the valuation to bo made by Messrs J. Fuller and R. J. Hodgins, each party to pay his own valuer's costs, and each party is to pay his own costs of aotion, but plaintiff is to transfer the license and pay the costs of such transfer. Plaintiff is to pay £l4 7b 6d short, paid ou the previous valuation of stock, etc.; £5 to be allowed to plaintiff for balance of stores, and plaintiff is to receive back a cheque for £75. Mr A. L. Herdman appeared with Mr O. A. Pownall for the defendants, and Mr P. L. Hollings for the plaintiff. DISCHARGES FROM BANKRUPTCY. On the application of Mr B. J. Dolatj, instructed by Mr J. W. Card, discharge from bankruptcy was granted in the case of Thomas Harris, farm hand, of Martinborough. Arthur Bedford, atorekeeper, of Masterton, applied for, and was granted, bis discharge from bankruptcy.