MAGISTERIAL

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 1892, 13 July 1888, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL

ASHBTJRTON— THURSDAY. (Before Captain Wra.y, R.M.) CIVIL CASKS. J. Englebretson v J. Russell, claim £18. Mr Cuthbertson for plaintiff, Mr Russell for defendant. The olaim wbb for wages alleged to be owing, for damages for an assault alleged to have been committed by defendant, and, for dismissal without notice, was a dross action, Russell vEnglebretson m wbioh the Bum of £2 Is was olaimed for goods alleged to have been supplied and money lent to the plaintiff. Englebretson said that he had been m the defendant's employ a little over two weeks, having been engaged at a salary of £2 10s a week to assist m removing Russell's Btock from one shop to another, and he was then to have gone on commission. When he asked Russell for a cheque the latter offered him ftrat IDs and then £1. Plaintiff, declined to acoept this, and defendant paught him by the throat &pd threw him out intp the Ipotpath. Witness returned to the shop a.pd was again thrown out. ge admitted, havjpg received mpney aqd goods to tb,e value of I|3 from Russell.— Jn cross-examination the plaintiff denied having agreed to work for Rusßell for the price of his board (£1 per waek). He had previously worked m Ashbur* ton for 30s, and had been out of employment some time when he accepted Russell's engagement. Be had been arrested for obtaining goods by false pretences m Cbtistchurch, but the case was not proceeded with, aa hya t\ion emplopor m, Ashbur^n paid/'tfte 1 inqney. When'PAoaeflrin'g s6&e stuff m Russell's shop be had out about half a yard too much, the mistake being caused by the small counter. He drew Russell's attention to the mistake himself. It was not m consequenoe of this that Russell dismissed him. It was about ten minutes afterwards that he asked for his wages.— A. H. flhury oas that t^'sawi the pontiff befag vToltfplly eieoteo from Russell's § hop.— <J. fillet saw the fcssault, and said the mistake jo meaaurement of the stufl was pointed out to Russell by Englebretson himself. — J. Russell, the defendant, said that he had ongnged tho plaintiff for £1 a week, plaintiff desiring employment so that h? tnigbt pay his board. He nctioeil plaintiff ' ha'fl apcaren.ly cut too tnuoh stuff On 6no ooc'^oni anSon measure'menf found" that i<[ W so. Tfte remonstrate^' with, the glajip,ti#, w.ho t^eyeop'yppn fteeame vevy abusive, and witnetti requested him to leave the shop. As the plaintiff declined to do this witnesu put him out, using no more violence than was neoeusary. He gave particulars ot goods and

mo!lCj? w'hioh he alleged he had qms plaintiff,—W. Steward said that he. neard, a conversation betwoen Englebretson and Russell plior to 'ihe formers engagement \a whiph the sum of £i \yaa x^ent^neil.—^Fbe t&te thkt! the ag to. wages agreed pn Vas sq c'antra^iotoyy that he mvi* ftUaw wh.a^ he coDsidejed would be a fair salary, a.nd tbla according to evideroe which had been given would, he thought, be about 30a a week—or £4 10a altogether. He did not think the plaintiff was entitled to any wagoa m lieu of notice, as the wprlj. he had been engaged to do was praotioallyoyer.' tn regard to the assault he Was of opinion that defendant had used a good deal of violence, and plaintiff was ejected m an, jgnotnfriio^s manner. $c would b.a allowed 3,0s oa this part o.f hip olaini.' In Russell's claim judgment was given for 14b, B. y V. Whittington, olaim £3 Ss 10d. Judgment for plaintiff. TbeOowttbeorose,