Cutting Chaff.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume V, Issue 655, 5 September 1891, Page 3

Cutting Chaff.

DISPUTE AS TO PAYMENT. At the R.M. Court on Thursday morning, before Mr Booth, the case of W. E. Bidgool v J Wall, claim £5 Us Bd, was heard. Mr Finn for plaintiff and Mr DeLautonr for defendant. The sum of £2 7a had been patd into Court, but was not accepted by plaintiff. J. M. Bidgood deposed that he had made arrangements with defendant for the cutting of a stack of about ten tons of chaff at 5d per bag. They had gone on with it, but ran short of bags, and as defendant would not send them as promised they had themselves to send for the bags, to Kaiteratahi. Defendant had made no complaint about the way the chaff was cut. It was stuff that had been through the machine, and consequently was different to handle to what the sheaf straw would be. He himself had made the arrangement on behalf of the company of which hie wife and son were members. They bad not finished the contract because they could get no more bags. W. Bidgood gave corroborative evidence, adding that some of the chaff waa on the sheet when defendant came, and he never made complaint. Mr DeLautonr said the defence was that the contract had not been carried out, that the chaff was not properly cut and complaint had been made, and they knew nothing about thia company, the arrangement being made with Mr Bidgood, sen. Defendant deposed that the chaff was not being cut satisfactorily, on the middle gauge. He gave instructions that Bidgood must discontinue the cutting, and he ordered the supply of bags to be stopped. Mr Bidgood said he would cut the next lot better, but he had to complain again. None of the chaff was on the sheet while he was there—it bad all been bagged. The stuff was not cut fit for feed. Some of it, through carelessness, was nearly the length of his arm. The chaff cutter had not been filled properly, and the straw was “ chewed ” instead of out. A lot of the chaff had been returned to defendant as useless, and on some other loads he had to make a reduction in price. The Chinaman had sent his back, the driver for Mr Crawford had said half the chaff had to be wasted on account of the way it was cut. By Mr Finn : Had not supplied defendant with the 100 sacks be bad bought from Mr Devery, but had supplied him with some be. fore that until be had made a bad job of the (tutting. Had taken three or four loads away On different dates. Had found out in a few days that the chaff was no good. Hatt carted some nore away after that--what else could he do ? he had bought the stuff and there was no cover to keep it from getting damaged. Was certain the straw was worth Cutting—intended cutting it himself next

week. Mr Finn : You broke the contract five pionths ago, and are only going to cut the Straw now ? Wi'ness said it was Bldgood who had broken the contract. He wanted some other man than Bidgood to cut it. Had a sample bag of the chaff, and would charge Mr Finn 6s 8d for looking at it. (Laughter,) Knew Sothing of the company of Mrs Bidgood and on—knew ’em no more’n a brow, Mr Finn pointed out that the names were 10 expressed on the note of payment into Court, but Mr DeLautonr said that had been written by the solicitors. The sample of chaff was brought into Court and handled in a very dramatic way by Mr Wall, who expressed the opinion that he would like to aee Mr Bidgood himself experimented on with a few feeds of it. He also wanted to give Mr Finn a more than ordinary opportunity of inspecting the sample, and Mr Finn said they did not want another farce in Court, as on the previous day when Mr Wall was there. Mr Wall said this was no farce. In reply to His Worship, defendant said he had paid the money into Court because he did not want to see the man working for nothing, but as for the chaff, why. It was jn injury to the Bar 1 Mr Booth ; Another blow to Poverty Bay. (Laughter.) Mr P. H. Bourke deposed that his firm had acted as agents for Mr Wall, but the chaff was not properly cut and was not marketable. Mr George Brown also deposed that the chaff he got from Mr Wall waa very poor, but not SO hably cut as the sample shown. Mr DeLautonr said the reason was plain that Wall had a right to interfere with the contract to prevent the whole of the straw being spoilt by being out in an unmarketable way. They bad the evidence that the chaff had been spoilt, and the defendant appeared is have been too generous in offering £2 to Settle the case. As to the fact that Wall had not himself out the chaff it was not always easy to get anyone to cut half a stack ofchaff, and Mr Wall would perhaps be too busy—that was an aggravation if anything.

In the course of his remarks Mr DeLautonr made strong reference to the so called Bidgnod Company. In his reply Mr Finn said these people were trying to make an honest living, and he retorted by rough comments on the Native Land Settlement Company. Mr De* Lautour said that Mr Finn could say sueh things there, as he wee privileged. Mr Finn said Mr DeLautonr could take what action he liked, and he would not plead privilege. Judgment waa given for £2 10s, costs £2 17s,