RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume III, Issue 634, 12 May 1882, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

ASHBURTON—To-day. (Before Joseph Beswick, Saq., R. M.) The Mysterious Cask.—Andrew Clastrom was charged, on remand, with assaulting Alexander Shaw. Sergeant Felton said that Shaw was still ill in bed, and unable to attend the Court. A medical certificate was handed in from Dr Leahy to this effect. The sergeant said he had witnesses to prove that, although Shaw was knocked down by Clastrom, he was not kicked. Under the circumstances he would ask to bo aliowed to withdraw the case, and if necessary the defendant could bo called up at some future time. The charge was withdrawn accordingly, and the defendant left the Court. Wandering Houses.— T. Trevurza was fined 5s for allowing a horse to be at large. —R. Lancaster was also fined 5i for allowing two horses to be at large. CIVIL CASES. Lawrie v. Hussey. —Claim L 8 Gs Bd. Mr Crisp for plaintiff; Mr Wilding for defendant. This was a claim for wages for four weeks and two days, as harvest cook, and L2 for wrongful dismissal. The plaintiff said ho had been engaged to cook for the harvest hands by Mr Hussey, who said that he would pay him “ the highest wages in the county.” Plaintiff was dismissed from defendant’s service at a moment’s notice, having done nothing to

justify such dismissal. —A contra account was put in for socks, boots, and sundries —Plaintiff denied that he had ever had the boots or socks.—Cross-examined by Mr Wilding : The plaintiff said that the reason of his dismissal was that Mr Hussey came homo one day, and said ho (plaintiff) was under the influence of liquor. Plaintiff admitted that this was true, but contended that he was quite able to attend to his work. Hussey.s quick temper had occasioned his dismissal. When he came homo on the clay plaintiff had referred to, his room was not broken into. Mr Wilding : And you were drunk when Mr Hussey came home ? Where did j'ou get the whiskey ? Was it Mr Hussey’s whiskey ! Defendant said it was not Mr Hussey’s whiskey. It had been brought down by a man.—Mr Hussey, the defendant, said he had dismissed the plaintiff because ho was drunk. When he returned home, the place was in a mess, his (Mr Hussey’s) room was broken into, and plaintiff had

got at the whiskey. He was very drunk, and spread out his blankets on the road and slept all the afternoon. —Questioned by his Worship: Plaintiff would swear positively that he had never had the boots he was charged with. —Mr Hussey was equally positive that the plaintiff had had the boots. The book in which the articles supplied to the men were entered was in the cook’s keeping, and the only pair of boots entered during the a time were entered to the plaintiff, and if not entered in his handwriting, then he had got someone else to write the entry.— Mr Wilding would simply contend that if the plaintiff had been justifiably dismissed —dismissed, that was, for bad conduct—then he was not entitled to recover one penny.—Mr Crisp contended that the entry in ihe book for boots was not in the plaintiff’s handwriting, and he could not be asked to pay for what he never had — His Worship thought the boots were not entered in the same handwriting. The plaintiff had been justifiably dismissed. Judgment would be for L 5 10s (which sum was covered by the amount paid into Court). Bartlett v. Harper.—Claim L 6; 14s Bd. Mr Wilding for plaintiff, Mr Crisp for defendant. This was a claim for milk supolied. A portion of the claim was disputed by the defendant, but ultimately, at the suggestion of the counsel engaged, the case was compromised, plaintiff consenting to accept a judgment for L 4, without costs. In the following cases judgment went by default:—Harper v. Easton —Ll2 12s 2d. Matson, Cox and Co. v. Le Breton I —L49 17s Bd. Fergie v. Bligh—L6 10s lOd. The Court then rose.