RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1290, 26 June 1884, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

ASHBURTON.—To day. (Before H. 0. S. Baddeley, Esq., R.M.) Drunkenness. —John Marsh, an old offender, was fined 20s and costs for this offence. Deferred Payment Leas is.—Oommissionerfof Crown Lands v. Lewis, and Same v. Cox.—Mr Martin for the plaintiff.—At the suggestion of the Bench, these two cases, where the defendants were charged with not having complied with the conditions of their leases, were adjourned until similar cases hoard at Geraldine yesterday were determined. civil cases. Welsh v Rowse, claim LI2 6s 6d.—Mr Branson for the plaintiff, and Mr Crisp for defendant.—Thomas Welsh, a carpenter at Methven, deposed to having done work for Rowse to the amount of the claim, and was cross-examined at considerable length by Mr Crisp.—William Rowse, the defendant, said that on the 18th October last ho agreed to a settlement with the plaintiff, who gave him an 1.0. U. for a pound, the balance between them. Since that date the plaintiff had done no work for him. —Judgment for defendant with coats. Donovan v. Grahanj, claim L2O 3s.— Mr Wilding for plaintiff; Mr Branson fop defendant.—Ll6 3 s and costs had beer paid into Court, and the only dispute between the parties was the rate of wages.— John Donovan, the plaintiff, said that he had been engaged by defendant as shepherd at 30s a week. He worked under this arrangement for twenty-four weeks with two dog*. Peter McNiel, the overseer at Graham’s run, was ill during the plaintiff's service, and Douglas undertook th« duties of manager. Plaintiff had performed his work satisfactorily, and had never hoard any com-plaints.—Cross-examined by Mr Branson : Could not swear that Douglas was manager, but he looked to him for orders. Had scon Graham’s son at the station oo-

caaionally, but could not say if he was Manager Sc not.—Re-examined by Mr Wilding : Graham’s son knew that Douglas was giving plaintiff orders. —To the Bench: Graham, jun,, gave plaintiff cheques in his father’s name.—Williara Douglas was head shepherd, at Graham’s station. Ho directed the other men by instructions from Graham. Had written to Donovan testifying to the efficiency of his services. Donovan had been engaged mustering about seven weeks, and was worth 30s a week. Some of the men upon similar work received from L2 to L 3 Cross-examined by Mr Branson; The mustering occupied about seven weeks; during the balance of the engagement the plaintiff was erecting sheep' yards and doing other odd jobs.—l. R. •0. 0. Graham, the defendant, said that he had engaged the plaintiff in Timaru at 25s a week. Douglas had assumed some of McNiel’s duties during the latter’s illness, but ha was not manager; the defendant’s son acted in that capacity,— Cross-examined by Mr Wilding: The average rata of wages to musterers was L2 a week. - Under-shepherds usually received L 65 a year, or 25s a week ; if engaged for a short service would receive rather more. The plaintiff was engaged mustering seven weeks, and was afterwards at times engaged amongst the sheep.—Alexander Graham, son of the previous witness, was overseer at his father’s station. He took that position some time in January. The plaintiff was then working there, he was engaged mustering, fencing and boundary keeping ; he was an average hand. The value of the work done, by plaintiff, other than mustering, was about 20j a week.—Crossexamined by Mr Wilding : Had not the faintest idea of the value of harvest hands. Could not say when harvest commenced.—Counsel having addressed the Bench, judgment was given for LI 15s and costs, in addition to the amount paid into Court.

O'Grady v Eden, claim LIOO. Mr Wilding for plaintiff, Mr Crisp far defendant. —Evidence in this case was taken on the 13th inst, and the Resident Magistrate delivered the following, judgment to-day This- is a claim for negligent threshing by the defendant of plaintiff’s grain. Of course, in these cases there Is considerable difficulty in proving the loss sustained. However, after carefully going through the evidence I have arrived at & decision which I trust is a fair one between the parties. I am of opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to substantial damages in this matter. I am not awarding him the amount claimed, for I have seen fit to make certain deductions, but he has clearly established, I think, his right to compensation at the hands of the defendant, who has himself to thank for not being in a position to personally disprove the statement of the plaintiff, and he (the defendant) gives a most lame excuse for not. accompanying the plaintiff when invited to do so to look at the work complained of. We have the evidence of disinterested witnesses that the wheat poured out of the straw when forked, and also it is stated by witnesses that they never saw such waste before. The contention of the defence that the straw heaps should have remained so that the defendant might have had an opportunity of inspecting them cannot be listened to for one moment, for he missed his opportunity, and the plaintiff required their removal in order to plough. Wherever the straw was there was evidence of great waste, and it is in evidence that there need be little if the straw is properly threshed. 1 gather from the evidence that there was no loss from weathor, and it is also in evidence that.it is possible to estimate pretty closelj the yield of growing crops, if weather does not enter into the question. The defence objects that the best men were not called but I must go by the evidence before me, wh'ch was given in a straightforward way, and with apparent knowledge of these matters, and It was of course competent for the other side to call whom they liked. The defendant has shown carelessness in threshing and in not going with plaintiff, and in putting damp straw through the machine. The amount per bushel (3i 1J) is not disputed. The judgment will be in round numbers for LBO and costs ; but in the case Eden v. O’Grady, O’Grady must pay for the bag sewer L 3 7s sd.—Mr Crisp gave notice of appeal.