MAGISTERIAL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1437, 21 December 1886, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

ASHBURTON—TUESDAY, (BefrreMrH 0. S Biddeley. R.M, and M'jor Steward, J f.) CIVIL CASI?. Reilly, lt Kennedy, p aim £6 19j.—Mr Cuthbertson for plaintiff, Mr Parnell for defendant. —The claim was for wages alleged to be due. Pisioflff said ho wtnt to work forthe defendant on June 26 and continued in his employ till Decamba; 6 Made no agreement as to rate of pay during the first two months of the period, bnt at the end rf that .time arranged for 10j a week. Witness admitted the receipt of the articles with which defendant had supplied him, and the value of these being deducted from his waces left the sum of £6 19< due to him.—ln answer to Me Purnell : The plaintiff said that he was “hard up" wSea he accepted work at Kennedy's bnt be did not ask the defendant to allow him to step at bis place till he got a ch&nce to get work else where. Plaintiff may have misled work on a few occasions, bat at these times he was ill. Mr Kennedy had not on several occasions told him to clear out. The plaintiff, on being farther cross-examined, admitted having been supplied with various artie’ea, blankets, shirts, and socks, by Mr Kennedy. When witness left he asked defendant for wages; Kennedy gave him £1 and told him to clear out.—H. Kennedy, the defendant, said that the plalnt tf bad been in his employ last harvest for a few weeks t ut witness bad to get rid of him because he was not suitable. Last Jane he made his re-appearance in a “ hard up ” condition and asked to be allowed to remain at witness’s place, and to receive his food in retain for his work. The plaintiff worked in a very Irregular manner. Sometimes ho stopped in bed for a whole dsy ; cn these occasions he did not appear 10 be ill and had always an •* extra feed ” on getting up. Witness did not attempt to control his movements. On several occasions witness told him to rl-sr ont because he was so slovenly. When finally he went away ha asked w tnesa for a pound or • two because he was hard np. Witness gave him £1 and he appeared to ' he satisfied Several times previously witness had given the plaintiff a few shillings- Witness kept no account of th« hours in which the plaintiff worked j but if the plaint ff hau been receiving wages he weald ntrtat decidedly h«ve kept such « record. JV ben thy pLintiff was at witness' plage he wpntaway ou' 1 sayppil occasions to look for work. Witness had allowed the plaintiff' to stop about his place simply as an act of charity*—la reply to Mr Ct thbetteon, the plaintiff said ' that the plaintiff bad cut some of bis hedges. He bad cot abont ISO obains ( worth 63 a chain.—By Vx PBnwJJj

Witness considered the food, clotbimq &n<l mrmy which he gave the plaintiff ample recompense for the work done By the Court; It was not an unusual thing to pat men to work for their “tucker” on cutting hedges. A man who could do wo-k of this kind won d he worth 10s a week provider he worked we 1 Besides cutting the hedges, the plaint ft carted some straw, cut a Ji'tle firewo l cl and grubbed rorae g-rre—Mrs Kennedy remembered ‘he piai tiff coming to the r plso n and asking her ’-isband for wm-k Mr Kerr- dy p> i i be din not wai t a man but Ifeiiiy sskecl to be allowed to atop on and woik for his food. When the plaintiff had been at their p’aca for s ont a fortnight he asked for some blankets and shir's esyirg that i : he got them he woird w-.tk for a lona while. Witness spoke to her husband, and he raid that although Hi illy wssn’t worth much she nngh' give lorn the things he asked for. On a second orc»s'cn he asked for more things, and to’d sneb a pitiful story that witness’* husband al owed him to have them. The plaintiff never spoke about wages ; only at one lime he expressed a hope that Mr Kennedy would give htm someth.- g t< r Christmas time, ff he plaintiff was a great nuisance about the place, sometimes not coming In to his breakfast at 9. 30, and 11 o’coek, This greaßy inconven enoed witness, and she told the plaintiff aeve »1 times that he would have to go as also did Mr Kennedy—James Allan g-ve evidence as to the plaintiff stopping in bed a‘ a busy time when, apparently, there was nothing the matter with h ; m. Witness heard the defendant ieH plaint ff to clear rut.—Dav'd Cocl rsre, farmer. *aid that (he plaintiff had applied to him two or three time’s for work Witness asked him if Mr Kennedy had no work for him. The plaint'ff said he had rot much, that hs was making Kennedy’s place his home, ai d that he did not look for any wacee.—The B->rch expressed the opinion that the p’aintiff bad received ample payment for his se-v’ces, and gave judgment for the defendant Warne v Dighy- claim £l2 10* —Mr Wilding for p’aintiff, Mr (Jaypill Hr defendant. On the »nnlica'it n of Mr Cayglll, the case was rdj mmed to Jan 18.

CAUL'S AT L4FGE John M"ran was charged with allowing three cattle *o wander at largo in a public place. The defendant that the road on which the catHe were was not a public place, rot having been dedicated.—The Bench decided that the interpretation of j“ public p’aces” given by the Police Offices Act disposed rf the defendant's objection.—A fine of 7s 6d a head and costs was ir dieted Mrs Hyde, for having allowed one cow to wander at large, was fined 7s 61 and costs Philip Williams was charged wHh having allowed four head cf catt’e to wander at large. Fined 7* 61 a head and costs. James Pritchard, for allowing a horse to gr: Z 3 in a public street, was fined 7s fid and costs

William BayUa, for a similar ofience, was fined 7* fid and costs. James Martin wan charged with tethering a horse on * section of land so that the an’roal tre passed on the Adjoining street.—The Bench characterised the prac ice as a most dangerous one. A fine of 10s end costs wn« inf! ctad; ISBEACH OF BT-LAWS. N. Eda was charged with driving a cart open a footpsth.—Mr Crisp appeared for the Borough Council.— J. Campbell said he saw the defendant driving a horse and trap for about two chains and n half along Aitken street.— By the defendant; There was another man and some of Ede’s children in the trap. Witness wo-dd not swear the defendant; had the reins. He would not swear th« trap belonged to the defendant, but he was nearly sure it did —W. B Compton siid that he told the defendant that he wnnld be sumra' ned. The defendant replied that it would bo time enough to summons him when the channel was put In and the footpath forme J —The defendant said that he was cot drivirg cn 'he occasion in question.—Mr Crisp atked the wl ne s if the cart and horse were his, but h« declined to answer the question.—Mr Crisp submitted the defendant was bound to answer but after some argument, he decided rot to pres the quest I n—The Bench were sat'sfied the cart he'o- ged to the defendant and a fine cf 10a and costs was inflicted.

ALLEGED LAECENT. Eliza Mo ' eagua was charged with the larceny of an overc'-a? valued afc £4 the property of John Henry.—Mr Wilding appeared for the defendant.— Sergeant Felton said that sine the Information had been laid circtfmstsrces had come to his knowledge which poi? ted to the f»ct that there bad been no feloi fee s intent on the pvrt of the accused, ' he coat had been taken from Mr Henry’s bote] and had been found on the r-’&d by Mrs McTeasue who took stepa to advertise that she bad found It In consequence of the necessary authority for Intention not having b-en given th ? advertisement did not appear but of this fact Mrs McTeagne, who could m t reed or write. web not aware. Under these circumstances he would ask leave to withdraw the Information.—The Bench were of pplnion after hearing Sergeant Felton’s explanation that Mrs McTeaeue had had po felonious i Mention *nd le*ve would be given the police to withdraw the lrformation Frederick Feiritnan was charged with the hrpany of potion t { a reaper and binder, valued pt £3 11s the property rf Mr Nicbo’&s. Mr Purnell appeared for the acca ed. The following evidence was taken Constable ’Tmer, said that in company with Nicholas he executed a ata'ch warrant. He went to the farm of William Williams at Willowby. Mr Williams was away at the time reaping on Chatmosa estate. They went there and Nicholas pointed out the knotter (produced) as being his property. Witness took possession of it —William Nicholas, farmer, said that ha purchased a reaper and binder from the accused about two years ago. It worked very well daring the harvest of 1884 but during 'he following harvest a portion of the knotter broke Witness went to the accused to Bee if he conld get a dnpl'cate of the portion ho had broken. The accused B*i(Tbe had sold rut all that be had bad and he did net f ok he con’d get any in Christchurch or Dunedin. Witness then asked him ii he had a knotter complete. The accused replied that he had not one In stock bat he thought he could get witness one. Ultimately he got one from IflV Hunt for witness who paid {-.r It by cheque. Some tjme afterwards witness brought the nr»chine|into Ashbar on for Bale °lt then had the knotter, produced, attached. JWitnets ident fied the knot'er by certain marks. Witness only san the machine at the Arcade on one occasion after he brought it in. But after it hrd bee > Bold, in ctnaequence of somethin.? h*> heard, be went to see the machine and he found that the knot-er was nrssnp. It bad then be?n recently taken because the oil where it l ad bean was wet 8? metime afterwards went to accused’s place of businrrs with an account, In order to getan explar.st ion of the various items. Accused said that one item wus for a piece tf a knotter which bad been broken, but he did not know anythirg shout the other itsma aa the trsrenclirn had been a c sh one Abort a nvtrh taoni nis- came to rea de in Ashbtrtor. Shortly sf erwards In consequence of what he had been told be went to arcuied and asaed him who bought a machine In Msy last. He said Williams of Waier'on. Witness aecertained that there was also a Williams at Willowby and on going a second time to the accused t e told witness this \yaa tho one who bad bought* the Machiotr In jtp’y to accused witness; e*id he wanted to see ( he machine fitness 'moved- to g'6 irjiep the secured said “ If you can prove

i th»i it interests mo in any » ay by rem ivine y.ur kn tier 1 ni l give you a pound ” W.'nessa vent out to Mr | Williams and saw the knot tor produced. ( When witness re-timed he wss riding put the premises if thea-ces d wirnbe [’ c mo out ml i 1 q dred “If it was th" t lio' tier or not." iVitnors replied that it ! war; that h-.’d swsw to it. ' cua*d ill n j »sj-i J ih'-t he had b j eu spooking to Mr I Hunt wl o said ib;» ! he h <1 brought back , t! o taw (emitter and e-'t t’ie Id one out n{ u ca.-e’b i tlica memiog shat vv;i ch wuno'a had prevl ualy got at Hunts. the icco-icd rds said t‘ at he did uot know how it got • it,to his ■ A few days subs q loot to th-s»conversalu-n witness wont to the accosto’d sb p. The accused admitted that the kaot’&r was witness’s, Mr Bl.nl happened, to conrn in at this time and witness explaired .thef circumstsnc a to him. He siw the only thin* for wi - ne c a t* do was t> lay au information. Tre accused G.iu ho was still a knottir short but witness replie i that that had nothb gto do with him. tihorily aft-'r the summons was issued witness met the licensed who invited him to his t flioe. When they arrived there the accused asked witness if he would withdraw the charges if he were paid what it cost him. Witness replied thet he bad nothing to do with the matter and that it had passed out of his hands. Accused then took witness to Mr Bullock's ffios, where in rep y to Ferriman, Mr Bullock said ho c mid iff rno advic*. He understood that Mr Wilding was acting f r wi nes* I and he was the proper person to whom to I go. He also said that Ferrimau should have taken action before ‘he charge was laid when the accused teoiie 1 that he did not think witness would have done whet he bad.

[Left Sitting ]