MAGISTERIAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 2715, 21 January 1910, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 20. : (Before Mr. W. A. Barton, -S.M.) CIVIL CASES. Judgment was given for plaintiffs, for the amount claimed, in the following undefended cases; Charles Livingstone Ferguson (Mr. Mann) v. Frederick Neiison, baianco £lO 5s Id, costs £3 10s 6d; Gertrude AVlieeler (Mr. Bernard) v. R. Bartlett, £ls 16s 6d, costs £3 12s 6d; Wm. Tat-tley (Mr. Mann) v. Hugh Binnie, £2 19s, costs 12s; Lynda Soap Co. (Mr. Burnard) v. Hugh Cameron, £lO, costs £1 3s 6d. A SHEEP-SHEARING CLAIM. Moemoe Tewao and others (Mr Finn) proceeded against Guy Fenton Porter, sliec\p farmer (Mr. Mann), for £25 8s 6d, the claim being for shearing at £1 per 100, with the wages added of three fleecers at 7s per day, and a cook at £1 16s. £l4 14s had been paid into Court. There were nine plaintiffs, and five gave evidence as to agreeing to shear for plaintiff, the plaintiff stating that lie -would keep them in food and pay the fleecers and the cook 7s a day. Rain delayed operations a great deal, and when they came to get payment the wages hands claimed 7s a day for 54 days, and the cook £1 16s a week for three weeks. Defendant wanted to deduct 5s per head on the whole party, for food supplied on nine days on which they did not work, on account of the wet, blit they all refused payment on these terms. The defendant gave evidence that only 44 days had been worked, and when the offer of food was made it was clearly pointed out that this was only while they worked. When the party came to him afterwards he agreed to the time they claimed, because he wanted to be fair, but the claim of 5s per week for food was very reasonable, 10s being tne amount usually claimed. Daniel Parker, slieep-farmer, To Arai, gave evidence as to the custom when employing shearers, which was to pay the cook and fleecers only for working days, and to charge for food. The hearing lasted for several hours. In giving judgment. His Worship said there was no doubt as to the sheep having been shorn, and he would have to allow the ti-me claimed for the fleecers and the wages claimed by the cook. He could not allow defendant to deduct for food, as he had agreed to supply food. Judgment would be for the plaintiffs for £2O 12s 4d, with costs amounting to £ls 10s, less the amount paid into Court, £l4 14s lOd. The expenses were for four Native witnesses, two men and two women, allowed for three days, as 34 miles had been -travelled, costs of Court, solicitors’ and interpreter’s fees. A HORSE CASE. Matthew McCredie, farmer, Gisborne (Mr. Burnard) claimed £2O from D S. Thomson and Co. (Mr. Nolan) in respect of a horse sold. Plaintiff gave evidence as to owning the half draught gelding in question, and selling ft to defendants for £2l, stating that the horse was sound, but otherwise he knew very little about him, but thought careful treatment was needed. He agreed to allow them £1 to work the horse in a brake, to quieten it. (Some time afterwards the defendants said the horse could not he managed, and had damaged their cart, so they would not take the horse. Witness refused to take the horse back, but it -was put intc! his paddock. Wm. Ritchie, laborer, previous owner of the horse in question, stated that he had worked the horse constantly for five months in the lead of a dray, and found him staunch and quiet. He had also used the horse three or four days in the shafts, and had no trouble, although he was a little touchy after spells. David Stewart Thomson, defendant, admitted seeing the horse on 7tii January, when plaintiff said it was as quiet as a lamb if handled carefully at the start. "Witness said he wanted a quiet horse for a van he had just purchased at £55. Defendant said the horse wa s not vicious, stating that he had got a guarantee from Ritchie, and would give the same to witness. Previous to closing the bargain -plaintiff suggested they should give 'the horse a run in the brake, and lie would allow £1 off the price. They tried the horse in a low cart, and when taking him out he kicked and smashed the front of the cart, then bolted with the vehicle, and was caught by the shaft getting caught in a fence. Witness then took the horse back to plaintiff’s -place. John Henry Smith, partner with the other defendant, gave corroborative evidence.

Robert Morrison, blacksmith, gave evidence that the horse was troublesome when being shod, and oh the drive afterwards shied at motor cars. When they got him and had one side of the bucking rope undone, the horse bucked and plunged, and made off. Patrick Leigh, in the defendant’s employ, and George Bates, car-tor, gave corroborative evidence as to the horse’s playing up and damaging the cart.

The case was adjourned sine die, to allow the evidence of a witness for tho plaintiff to be taken in Wellington.