MAGISTERIAL

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2489, 30 April 1909, Page 6

MAGISTERIAL

THURSDAY, APBBL 29

(Before. Air. W. A. Barton, S.AI.)

CIVIL CASES

Judgment for plaintiff' with costs was entered in each of the following eases:—-Grace Boag (Air. Finn) v. Donald AlcXenzie, 12s 6d, balance of amount claimed and costs ss; London ’Dental Institute (Mr. L. T. Burnard) v. Alary Jones, £7 ISs 9d, and costs £1 10s 6d ; Hugh Joseph Finn v. Heni war ten, formerly known as Heni Thornp.son, £26 17s 4d and costs £3s19s; Daveys, Third and Aiitchell (Air. Hoi) v. G. A. Friers, £6 15s, balance of pmattrit• claimed, and costs. £1 3s 6d. i 7 JUDGMENT. CASES.

Orders were made in judgment summons cases as follows: Bernard ■ Fitzpatrick (Mr. Blair) v. Sydenham Oxenham, for the immediate payment of '* amount of claim and costs , £lO 19s lid in default 11 days’ imprisonment ; Dora Oevery (Mr. Bright) v. James George Lilly, immediate payment of amount of claim'and costs, £il Os 4d, in default 12 days’ imprisonment. THE SALE OF A COW. At tlio Magistrate’s Oonrt yesterday morning, before Mr. W. A. Barton' S.M-, George,, Robert Moore (Mr. Coleman) sued J. A. MeCrae (Mr. Nolan) for £ls, the value cf a pedigree calf, v and loss of profit on a cow through being affected with a contagious disease at the time of purchase. Mr. Coleman said a good deal of evidence had been, taken at Palmerston .North. Mr. Moore- had negotiated to purchase two Jersey cows from defendeorfespondence would show that the was told one was shortly to calve. On defendant’s representations plaintiff purchased a cow called Bella 111. The The correspondence would show that defendant stated that the cow was what lie represented it to be, but evidence would show that the cuw had had a •cit'd only a few weeks before it was sold to plaintiff. The plaintiff had been iP'io to a lot of expense and trouble and lind lost the services of the cow for twelve months, as well as the eair. Samuel Burton, Government veterinarian, said that he had many years experience among stock, and lie saw a Jersey cow, in July last year, m r Jmuiiff’s paddock. The cow aad arrived from Palmerston North the dnv before. .He examined the cow, and sa ,v indications that the cow had recently alerted. He had lived for some wars in the Palmerston North distri.t, and knew the principal Jersey here's tlc-re. He would value a pedigree Jersey calf ar from £lO to £ls. The cow was tut -of profit for eleven months. 3'he loss of profit would be about c'.J or £lO William McCrisky. farmer and d.i rytnan, said he had had 17 years, experience of Jersey cattle. He estimated the profit on a Jersey cow at from £lO to £l2 a year. The plaintiff said that for some years past he had been breeding pedigree. Jersey stock. Last year lie visited the Palmerston North Show. He saw the defendant with eight other gentlemen, and agreed to buy two cows for 25 guineas each. He wrote a letter to defendant to that effect from Gisborne, He received a.reply from defendant giving the pedigree of the cows. When the cows arrived he saw Bella 111 had •calved, and that she had a contagions disease, and; he had to turn her out. He telegraphed the fact to defendant, but got no reply. He sent a second telegram, but still there was no reply, ex- ;; cent i letter from his son which arrived ' about three weeks afterwards. The cow would not come into profit until August next, and he estimated his loss at £ls. To Mr. Nolan: He bought the cow because he thought the breeding would suit his herd. He also set a value on the calf because of the pedigree.' Mr. Nolan put in defendant’s evidence taken in Palmerston North. Both Air. Nolan and Air. Coleman briefly addressed the Court, and his Worship reserved his decision. SALE OF A HOUSE. ’ CLAIM AND COUNTER CLAIM. i John Lionel Baker (Air. Hei) sued Howerawera Alokimo'ki (Air. Finn) for * £-3 9s 2d goods supplied and delivered, j There was a counter claim of £4, the ‘ value of a horse sold, put in by defend- j ant. who admitted her liability to the j plaintiff Baker. > In the hearing of the counter-claim the plaintiff, Alokimok.i said she sold c Baker a horse in 1908. The defend- * ant told her that if she gave him the J horse the debt would be satisfied. Baker also gave her £2. She valued the horse t at £6. A few weeks ago she got a. * •summons from Baker for the amount € ' of the account, and the balance of the = purchase money, is still owing. Baker ? offered to give £6 for the horse, and >he agreed to take that amount. She did not get any goods from Baker after v rhe sold him the horse ? Mokimoki, plaintiff’s husband, said lie 11 bad also given Baker a horse in 1906 v ' as security for £lO. The £lO was re- )) paid to Ba'ker, and the horse, return- S 1 eel. v ■ ■ • s

The defendant Baker said that- the horse was given in payment of another debt, and goods to the amount of the ■claim had been supplied since. The phuntff sold him the horse on February loth for £6. Pier debt was then ££225s 4d. He gave plaintiff £2 and credited her with £4. Judgment was given for plaintiff on the original claim with costs £2, and on the counter-claim for defendant Baker with costs £1 15s. CLAIM FOB FIVE SHILLINGS. J. Wade and Sons sued George F. Preddv (Mr. Burnard) for 5s 4d for work and labor done. A sum of 3s 4d was paid into Court without admitting' liability. -J. Wade said he repaired a rail of defendant’s motor car and the charge v/as fair and reasonable. To Mr. Burnard: He was not sure he did the work himself, but he was isurb it was done in his workshop. He ■was not instructed bv Defendant to do the work. The rail was-brought to the shop by a young man. He was then carrying on business as J. Wade and j Sons. The partnership ceased last August. . - Francis Wade, plaintiff’s son. said he called on defendant and asked for pay-ra-ent of the account. Defendant said he .had not had the work done, and refused to, pay. Tie did not know who brought the rail to the shop to be repaired. Mr. Burnard asked for a.non-suit on the grounds that it had not been shown . the defendant ordered the work to be done. The defendant (sworn) said lie 'never authorised, the motor car rail tc be repaired by plaintiffs. Judgment was given for plaintiff for the amount paid into Court without costs.