TWiki > Pohos > PolishGenealogy > PolishArtilces > RemOat	TWiki webs: CLife| Know | Main | Pohos | Sandbox | TWiki |
	Pohos . { Changes | Index | Search | Go }

M A G I S T E R I A L

R. M. COURT, MILTON

(Before W. H. Revell, Esq., R. M.)

WEDNESDAY, 13TH MARCH, 1889

John Halba v. August Orlowski

Claim £10 damages for removing oats.

Mr. Stewart for plaintiff, and Mr. Reid for defendant.

Mr. Stewart stated that plaintiff purchased from C. Hilgendorf certain sections at Waihola, in which was a crop of oats. Hilgendorf had before this purchased from Mr. Kilgour. When the oats were ripe defendant entered on the land, cut and removed the crop.

Plaintiff, in his evidence, stated the area sown as 1 acre 3 roods, and thought it would throw 40 bushels per acre, and that defendant removed the crop.

In cross-examination, he stated that defendant ahd been in possession of the ground about three years. Mrs. Orlowski had sown the crop when defendant was in hospital. He purchased the land long after the crop was sown.

For the defence, Mr. Reid said his client had occupied under Mr. Kilgour for three years. There was no writing, but a verbal agreement was made in the presence of two witnesses by Mr. Kilgour. It was to the effect that defendant could have the use of the ground for three years certain, and if Mr. Kilgour did not want the property then, defendant could occupy same until it was required, and that he should have the first offer of purchase. The consideration for the agreement was that defendant should pay the rates and securely fence the land. The fencing had cost £20, and the rates had been regularly paid. Before the expiration of the term, defendant's sister called on Mr. Kilgour to know if he would sell on the expiration of the three years, and received word back that the land would not be sold. On strength of that, and relying on the previous agreement, defendant ploughed the land and sowed the crop. Before it ripened, plaintiff stated that he had purchased. Defendant then wrote to Mr. Kilgour, but received no reply. Under these circumstances counsel contended that his client was entitled to the fruits of his labor, and cited authority in support.

Defendant and three witness gave evidence, and his Worship non suited plainfiff with costs 17s, witnesses expenses 27s, and professional costs 21s. "The Bruce Herald", 15 March 1889.