CIVIL SITTINGS.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 2085, 12 March 1889, Page 3

CIVIL SITTINGS.

Jvssok v Weight, claim £152 10.'. Mr J. A. Oiygiil for plaimiS, Mr 0. W. Parnell for defendant. The following is the conclusion of onr report of this case :— E. F. Wright having given evidence of the length of plaintiff's tenancy of the cottage after having beeu given notice to leave. His Honor said that nnder the circumstances defendant could not claim for the rent of the cottage. > B/ Mr Oaygill : Witness waa not fn the bablt of striking his men ; he might speak sharply to them if they were not doing their dtry. Never caw truoka shunted without a tow rope; Only had experience of coal mining m the Mount Samers mine. Had beeu m otber mines, bat had never done any work m connection with them. Did not know if Jebson bad many years' experience ; knew that some of the family had been ponoerned m a Malvern mine. "Witness had not yet settled up with J^bson for the month of January m consequence of his leaving. The lump sum witness gave Jebion at the monthly settlements was based on the amount of trade, some times it was £5. sometimes £7, and once It was £10.— The witness was cross-examined at length by Mr Oayglll but nothiog material was elicited. William Hutchison, and John Smith, a lad, gave evidence. The latter spoke as co the assault. He saw Jebson "shaping" «t Wright. He then caw Mr Wright "tap him on the nose" The blow did not look very violent from where witness was, three or four chains away. Mr Parnell addressed the jury. Mr Caygill replied. His Honor summed up ia favor of the defendant on all the items Jwlth the exception of the contract for haulage and the assault, Ia regard to the haulage contract plaintiff was entitled to the work b» actually did, at the rate of 10j per day. Plaintiff swore that he bad been at this work f oar days and the defendant swore that he had only worked one day and it was for the jary to decide this point. As to the assault it appeared pUlntlff bad pat tfca defendant's horse where he had no tight to put it. This constituted a source of provocation, bat not each as to jastify the essaali. Both parties had been m fault and it was for the jary to settle what amount of compensation the plaintiff was antitltd to. The jury retired for a few minutes and on returning into Court found for the ptajDtiff m the mm of £18, made upas follows:— Twelve weeks work on tramway, £6 ; haulage of coil, £2 ; assault, £10. Oosts were allowed for jury and £2 2* lor counsel. Mr Parnell applied to the Godjt to stay e&.eoution pending an action for demsges for breach of contraot, which he mid the defendant was going to bring against Jebson. His Honor was not satisfied that there were sufficient grounds for the application which he declined. Tht Court then rote.