RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 1084, 26 October 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

ASHBURTON.— To-day. (Before EL 0. S. Baddeley Esq, R.M.) 'CIVIL GASES. Judgment went by default i« the following cases : -Spillard v. Hughes, claim Ll 5 15s 6d ; same v. Saunders, L 4 3s 3d ; Gudaoll and Smith v. Paget, L 4 2a lid ; Miles and Co. v. Compton, L2 Whi-o v. Compton, L 5. Lambie v. Major, claim of LG 10i, for rent of land. —Mr Purnell appeared for plaintiff The defendant did not appear, but his Worship read a letter received from her, stating that owing to her property being destroyed by fire, she.and: her family were dependent upon othei people, and could not satisfy the claim. Judgment was given for the amount. Cameron v. Cameron, claim Lll 4s, for wages.—James Cameron, the plaintiff, said he had arranged to work for defendant for 23s a weak. Since the last settlement nothing wis said about different rate of wages until witness was going away, when he offered LI a week, which he ' refused to take.—Cross-examined: The work was done for Mr George Gould and Me Duncan Cameron.—Mr Wilding submitted that the wrong person hid been sued, but Mr Crisp said that the payment of money into Court was evidence of a .cause of action existing.— Cross-examination continued : Witness had previously had 22s 6J a weak. Had arranged to receive an increased rate of wages for special work. The time during which this special work was between December and June, and about the time when plaintiff left another man was taken on to do stable work. Did not know the amount of stores he had.—Mr Wilding then called for the defendant, —Shaw, the foreman at the station. Plaintiff was engaged at 25s a week, and his duty was to supervise certain work.—To Mr Crisp : Had never complained of the plaintiff’s work and considered him a ghod man,—Mr Donald Cameron was then called, and in answer to counsel said that the engagement of plaintiff was made by Mr Shaw. —Mr Wilding said that after the evidence he would not go qn with the case, and judgment was accordingly given for the amount claimed with costs.

Welsh v. McLelland, claim of LB7 for ploughing and cartage.—Mr Purnell appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Garrick for defendant. The plaintiff gave evidence of the contract he entered into to plough certain land’for defendant at the ate of 6s par acre. Several other witnesses having been examined in support of the claim Mr Garrick raised a non-suit point. Another action had been taken for L 24 for harrowing, and counsel argued that this was part of the contract now sued for, and the case was therefore out of the Magistrate’s jurisdiction, as the sum involved was over Lloo.—The Bench uphe’d the point and plaintiff was accordingly non-suited with costs. Milne v. Cameron, claim of L 5 17s 6d for wages. —Mr Crisp appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Wilding for defendant. Thomas Milne said he had worked for Gould and Cameron up to the 20th October. Did not make any arrangement about wages and did. not know what he was to get until he asked for money, when he was told he would be paid 15s a week. Had never worked for less that LI a week, .and had only taken a cheque as part payment.—Cross-examined : Worked for Gould and Cameron, and the money paid to him was by an order'from the firm. ■ Mr Wilding said that this was fatal to the claim, but he would not press it as his clients had no desire to take advantage of

it. He would ask-his Worship to reserve the point and hear the evidence. Witness, in examination, said he wanted money to invest in a consultation.—For the defence: Shaw, tho f< reman, gave evidence to the effect that when plaintiff was engaged he told him that the wages last year was 16s, and he bad not heard anything to the contrary this year.—Duncan Cameron said that 15s was paid to better men than plaintiff, who was kept on because he was an old man. The practice on the station was that when an employee asked for his money, it indicated that be wished td leave. Cunningham, book-keeper on the station, gave similar evidence.—His Worship gave judgment for the defendant with costs. Reid and Gray v. Sargeant, claim L 63 12s. —Mr Crisp appeared lor plaintiff and Mr Wilding for defendant Tho defendant’s counsel said that only two Itema were disputed, which he contended were gross overcharges. There was a cross action in which the present defendant sued for damages caused by plaintiff.— Peter Walker, manager for Reid and Gray, said that the charges made in the account were fair and reasonable, he did not know it would be disputed till last Friday. Had frequently rendered.the account to defendant, and had threatened to sue for it- Witness had written to defendant giving him twelve days' notice, and the latter had promised to call 'add settle up, but had never come. This was the only dispute witness had had daring the yetr. —Cross-examined ; • Two reapers were supplied to defendant, one a string and the other a twine binder. Goth went home from witness’s place on the same day. Beyon 1 overseeing it, did not pers mally do ny of the work to the machines. Witness was then'examined as to the details of the repairs done to the machines, The firm of Reid and Gray, had only had anything tu do with reapers and binders in this district during the present harvest and part of the previous one. Had been the firm’s representative 1 for nearly three years. Defendant told witness what was wanted to be done to 1 the wire binder. The elevators were to be altered, and the roller grades and twisters adjusted. Never gave Mr par* geant a price for the work, but tjie latter said that he could get it done for about Lll. Witness now charged L2O for the ’ work. On the wire machine the labor ‘■i W%S L 8 4S and the malarial on the other machine the labor was L 5 loi 1 and material LI 16s 6d.—Robert Meiklan 1 gave evidence as .to the work done to tho. 1 machines. The fitter gave witness instructions as to what was required. Could not I say anything about - the'cost.—W. R. 1 Dunn, reaper and binder manufacturer, ’ said that Ll 9 was not too much for re--1 pairing an old machine. Could not isay t anything about ths string binder, M'he 1 did not know what was done.—Cross-ex--1 amined: Ll 9 was a fair price if the nlav > chine was much out of repair, but would’ • be too much for elevators only,':'for 1 which witness was •accustomed- -M: charge about Lll. —Mr Wilding B^id : 1 that the defence was that the charges- - made were exorbitant. Mr Sargeant > had been in the habit of employing Mr Dunn, but thinking his charges too high ? he went to Reid and Gray who promised 3 to do it for about Lll —He called Isaac I Sargeant who said that the chief -thingthe string binder wanted was the putting 3 on of washers, and these were . not dona, i 3. The fingers could have been fixed by wit* ness, and the knotting apparatus could' 3 have been adjusted by anybody, andwfts 3 not ordered. All that was wanted, on the wire binder was the putting on of new 3 elevators and the cutter adj isted. Plain- - tiffs did not know how to put the macnlite, 3 together after it had been taken, to pieces. t A definite agreement was made with - plaintiffs for Lll.—Cross-examined : In--3 formed Reid and Gray of his intention ) to sue them for damages in January laHtT' 1 Witness had received two letters demanding payment. Spoke to Mr Walkerabout r the machines as soon after he got them, - as he saw him. Witness was then cross-,-1 examined at considerable length as to the details of the bill.

[Left sitting.]