AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume I, Issue 52, 16 January 1877, Page 2

AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, January 12, 1877,

(Before His Worship the Mayor, and H. H. Fenton, Esq., J.P.'s.) OBTAINING MONEY UNDER FALSE PRETENCES. John Stuart was brought up on remand, charged with obtaining money under false pretences from Mr. Ashwin, proprietor Pigeon Bay Hotel, and on the application of Sergeant Ramsay was remanded till Monday, the 15th inst. W. AYLMER V. MCGREGOR. To recover the sum of £610s 10d being amount claimed for 12 months' interest on certain sections purchased from plaintiff by defendant, against which a set-off was filed. Mr. Inwood appeared for plaintiff. Mr. M'Gregor objected to counsel appearing for plaintiff, which he contended was quite unnecessary. Mr. Inwood held that it was quite impossible for defendant's objection to be enforced. The Bench considered the objection novel, and intimated that it would be a subject for consideration whether they would allow counsel's fee in the case. Mr. Inwood said that the set-off filed by defendant was informal, as it had only been delivered at two o'clock the previous day. Section 51 of the Act provided that a set-off should be delivered at least 24 clear hours previous to the sitting of the Court.

Defendant said that he had called at the Court House in proper time, but could find no officer to receive the set-off, and for that reason he was debarred from strictly complying with the Act. The statute provided that a set-off shall be first filed at the office, and then delivered to plaintiff, and as he had called at the office between 10 and 11 o'clock, and tendered the document to Mr. Missen, who said he had no power to receive it, ho thought under the circumstances, the statute gave the Bench ample power to allow the consideration of the set-off.

The Bench was of opinion had defendant first served the set-off upon plaintiff, and then filed it in the Court, he would have had a stronger case. The set-off would be disallowed,'as the service did not afford plaintiff sufficient time to consider its details. The defendant, of course, had his remedy by sueing plaintiff for the amount in the ordinary way. W. Ayliner deposed that on the occasion of his late land sale, he directed Mr. M'Gregor to draw up conditions, which were read out on the day of auction. Defendant knocked down two sections to himself, on the understanding that a certain percentage of the purchase money was to be paid in the shape of a deposit. Defendant.—l quite admit the account as far as it goes. Witness, cross-examined by defendant. —I recollect employing Mr. Inwood to act for me with regard to the account-sales, and he handed him (witness) the accountsale produced. Defendant said that he had been sued for a half-year's interest which he had paid to Mr. Inwood. The account current (produced) showed that he had paid his interest up to February, 1876. He admitted the balance—£3 5s sd—and said that the bill attached to the summons was the first demand made upon him. The Bench gave judgment for plaintiff for £3 5s sd, with costs of Court, but under the circumstances declined to allow counsel's costs. Plaintiff said that had he been aware that the half-year's interest had been paid to Mr. Inwood he would not have included it in the account. [Mr. Aylmer here took his seat.] KNOX V. BEECHER. To recover the sum of £3 155., being amount claimed for wages. Defendant had paid the sum of £2 15s into Court, and disputed the balance, on the ground that plaintiff had left his employ without giving the usual week's notice. Plaintiff deposed that he entered upon defendant's employ on November 29, at £1 per week. He had received £2, leaving three and a-half weeks due to him, together with an extra 5s for catching Brown Stout. He had intimated to Mr. Beecher three weeks ago that he was desirous of leaving, but did not wish to leave him in the lurch. Beecher said " Tom, don't put yourself about; get a better job if you can." On Sunday _ he saw a gentleman, whom he engaged with, and informed defendant that he was about to leave. Beecher said ' that the notice was too short. He (witness) tried to reason with him. Beecher said that he Avould not settle with him at; the time, but if he came down next morning lie would square up. He waited upon defendant according to arrangement, but was unsuccessful in obtaining a settlement, as defendant was "flying about all day." Defendant—lt is none of your business if I was " flying about." By the Bench. —I gave defendant three weeks' notice, which I consider enough. John Beecher deposed that he engaged plaintiff, who professed that he could milk, about five weeks ago, but Johnston

had informed him that plaintiff could not milk a little bit. After a fortnight plaintiff began to improve, but, Johnston had informed him that if plaintiiE were allowed to-milk the cows regularly he would soon spoil them. One day plaintiff called him out of the dining-room, and said that he waa going to s leave because one of the girls would get him no dinner, and had " chucked " a cup of tea over him. He had been making a bit free with her. He (witness) informed plaintiff that unless he gave a week's notice a week's wages would be stopped from him. Plaintiff then began to use foul language, which he assured the Bench was anything but parliamentary. The Bench gave judgment for amount paid into Co art. D. M'KAY V. WILSON. This was an action to recover the sum of £7 10s, being the value of a boat lent to defendant, and destroyed through his negligence in mooring same. Plaintiff deposed that the defendant came to his second son, and asked for the. loan of the boat, which was granted con-. ditionally that he became responsible for any damage that the boat might suffer while in his charge. The boat, after being used by defendant, was tied to a floating log, and during the night had broken loose, and was dashed up against a reef, and damaged to the extent sued for. He informed Wilson of the matter, and he requested witness to mend it, remarking that he was only a poor man. G-. M'Kay, son of the previous witness, corroborated his father's evidence. Defendant acknowledged having promised plaintiff £7 10s to repair the damage provided that it was occasioned through his negligence. The Bench gave judgment for amount claimed, with costs. JOHNSTON V. DUVACHELLE's BAY SCHOOL COMMITTEE (H. Piper, Chairman). Claim, £17 15s, for making road, &c, leading up to Robinson's Bay School House. The sum of £13 7s was paid into Court. Mr. Nalder appeared for plaintiff. Plaintiff deposed, that about the last week of August last the Chairman said to him that he (plaintiff) was just the man he wanted to see, as hs was desirous of letting a job for the making of a road up to the Robinson's Bay School-house. Witness remarked to the Chairman if he could not show him exactly what he required doing, he would be willing to do the work by the day. On their way home, the Chairman decided to let the work to him by day labour. It took 9£ days for witness and two men to finish the job. He was in the habit of receiving 9s per day, and when he worked for the Road Board he charged 10s. On contracts he paid his men 8s per day, and produced two cheques which he had paid away as wages to the men whom he had employed on the work in dispute. By Mr. Piper.—You instructed me to make a good job of the road. You did not limit me to £5 or £6. If you had I would not have accepted of the job. By Mr. Nalder.—Mr. Piper did not object to the work as it progressed. By the Bench.—l was to lay out the road the best way I could, and to clear away all roots and stumps. The job took us 9£ days. 'W. Whitfield deposed.—l know the work in question. I noticed Johnston and his men constantly at work. Johnston, before commencing, called upon me, and stated that Piper had informed him that he was to receive his instructions from me and Mr. Sager. The road was a kind of land slip, and I could not estimate the value of the work, but consider it was. properly done. I am a member of the Robinson's Bay School Committee. By Mr. Piper.—l understand that it was the wish of the Minister for Education that a road should be made, as the children could not reach the school without it. I do not recollect the meeting voting £5 or £6 for the work if the funds would permit. lam not an expert in road making. The work was well done, but I do not know the value of it. I did not feel myself justified in keeping an account of the men's time. Both Sager and myself gave instructions for the cutting of the drain.

By the Bench.—There are four committeemen residing in the Bay, none of whom objected to the work, believing it to be necessary. I saw a horse and bullock team at work.

J. Duxbury.—l know the work done by Johnston. He called upon me, and as far as I recollect of the conversation, he asked me what I thought of the job. I said that it was an ugly one, and I gave him my opinion. He had to build up an embankment with logs. The work was carried on during bad weather. I am accustomed to road making. By Mr. Piper.—The reason I presume that Johnston asked'my opinion was, that he knew I had a good idea of work of that description. I have not measured the work, nor have I valued it. I noticed the men employed working fairly. H. Piper deposed—l engaged plaintiff to make a road leading from the old Okain's track up to the school house. After the work was completed I objected to the charge as being excessive. I requested two experts to examine the work, and they valued it at £13 7s, which amount I have paid into Court. I have received two accounts for the work—the first being higher than the account attached to the summons. I do not know why plaintiff reduced the amount of the second account. By Mr. Haider.—l only gave instructions for part of the work. It is not my duty, as Chairman, to inspect contracts. After I have once given instructions I expect the work to be earned out in accordance. By the Bench.—l only gave instructions for the logging up of the slip, and the gouging of about half-a-chain. T. Adams. —I have examined the work in dispute. Having experience in such matters I value the work at £13 7s. I have measured the work carefully, allowing full value for the work presented to my view. I did not see ,the ground previous to the commencement of the work. By Mr. Nalder.—l arrived at the valuation by computing the work executed. Wet weather would facilitate the work, as the soil would dig easier. There may be circumstances to justify the charge; but as far as I have seen, I consider the estimate I have made to be a fair value for it. John Barwick. —I consider myself a fair judge of such a class of work, having a good deal of experience. I arrived at my valuation by measurement. I took the average measurement of the cuttings, giving every benefit to the contractor. Rainy weather is favourable to the execution of such work, as in summer time it would take double the time to pick it. I estimate the work at £13 7s, as presented to me.

The job, of course, might have been a difficult one, but looking at it in its finished state, I consider I have fairly estimated its value. The work is thoroughly done. Eight shillings a day is a fair charge for a labouring man. An overseer is entitled to charge Is a day extra.

The Bench, in giving judgment, remarked that Mr. Whitfield had sworn that Mr. Piper had given instructions to Johnston to take his orders from him. The work having been let by day labour, Mr. Piper or some other person should have looked after the men, and taken a note of their time. There was no attempt to take a note of the time, and, under the circumstances, judgment would be in favour of plaintiff, with costs. SHADBOLT V. V. LIBBAU. This was an action to recover the sum of £20, being amount of losses sustained by plaintiff through defendant and his wife's neglect while in charge of plaintiff's dairy. B. Shadbolt deposed.—l employed defendant and his wife to take charge of my dairy. On several occasions I found both defendant and his wife absent without any person in charge. I spoke to defendant several times about their frequent absence, but he appeared to treat the matter with contempt. On one occasion I lost a. able cow through defendant's neglect, it was defendant's duty to get all the" cows on the point of calving into ~a paddoclt; also to attend to the dairy. From Tuesday, the 21st, to Friday, the 24th/ defendant neglected to visit a cow which was calving, and in consequence the cow died. He refused to make cheese on a Sunday, advancing as a reason that it was a sin to do so. His wife refuses to work on any terms. On January 4th, defendant's wife left the station before milking time, and did not return till half-past twelve the same night. I have frequently to take my bed up to the station and stop all night. On Saturday night last about half-past 10 p.m., I visited the dairy, and found defendant engaged cheese-making. I told him that was no time for such work, as the morning's curd would spoil.

By the Bench, —I engaged defendant and his wife as yearly servants. They have yet six months to serve. I arrived at an estimate of the damages I have sustained in this way—Loss of cow and calf, £15 ; several cows receiving damage owing to defendant permitting their calves to suck them, and defendant's wife refusing to work. —. Reid: —I am' in plaintiff's employ, and remember Wednesday, the 21st November. I noticed a cow calving in the paddock on that day. I saw her again on, the Friday in a very bad state. I value the cow at £14 or £15. Francis Libeau, defendant, deposed.— As soon as I learnt that the cow was calving I went to her assistance, and without delay I informed Mr. Shadbolt of her position. Nothing was said to me until lately about the loss of the cow. Owing to my not making cheese on Sunday, Mr. Shadbolt got wild and turned round on me. He settled up with me on the 3rd of January. Mrs. Bryant asked what about the cow, and Mr. Shadbolt requested.her to say nothing about the cow. There was a balance of £13 due in my favour. Plaintiff had once threatened to charge me with the cow. He said that I had neglected the calves, and allowed the cows to jump over the fence. I.admit the calves have sucked the cows once or twice. I have never, neglected the dairyw .„■ After work I have gone put at night, buit I have stopped home all day and looked after the work. . - -.. ,

By Mr. Shadbolt.—When Mrs. Bryant asked what about the cow, you did not say let it stand in abeyance. When I left your place at night I was with a friend on business. You never informed me or sent word that I must not absent myself from your station till after the loss of the cow. I might have been away about one© a month. You gave me permission on one occasion to go to Christcnureh. I left on Friday and returned on Tuesday. My brother done my work for me during my absence. My dairy work is finished between half-past two and thjee o'clock every afternoon. Idp not go to bed in the afternoons. I employ my time carrying firewood and repairing the fence. . By the Bench.—lt is my duty to look after the cows. I did not know the cow ' in question was calving. I did. not miss.' her. She was running in a paddock half-a-mile distant from the nouee I reside in. My wife afed,, self hare, been both away together, btit, I got a young man to sleep upstairs during our absence. . Mr. Shadbolt desired to mention tfaat he was not prompted to take the action from a monetary point of view, but to gussd against the possibility of some setting fire to the house, or stealing cheese " x or other property during his servant's absence. The Bench reserved judgment till Tuesday, the 16th met. . Mr. Shadbolt would like the. advice off the Bench whether defendant had broken, his engagement, as he did not desire to retain his services if he had. The Bench remarked that plaintiff mu6t take one course or another. If his servants ■ had neglected their duty he could dismiss them without wa gee, but he ■would , have to show they had been guilty of gross neglect. If he claimed for damages, he could not dismiss them. ■The Court then adjourned.