Resident Magistrate's Court.

Clutha Leader, Volume III, Issue 131, 12 January 1877, Page 5

Re si de nt M ag ist rat c's Court.

','■'. 'AA\ , B AiCL'tJTH'A. y I- ■ /■ ! "",' '!JANU*iuY^lB77? V;° ;,';' ;,"-" r * !(Before.E.:H.;Carew, Esq., 8.M,, ,'-,._.. Stoddart Brothers v. Dobbie.— A : judgment summons. - '■■'-'■ •* - - - '• ' ■: . -• ,- This case had been adjourned from a previous Court-dayy to' allow of the defendant arranging as' to. payment.- He now said he had at former, heaiing agreed to pay £1 a month, if he.got.em- , ployment, but he had only wrought half-time, and had offered plaintiff 10s for- the month, » which he, declined to accept. He had his family to keep and his grocer to pay, and he oould not pay more. -_*"'' '•'-'■, '" "•''"■ ' Plaintiff said defendant' had had £*6''amonth w.ges. * *'"■ *" ' ; His Worship .said a judgment debt must take ■ precedence 'of other debts. Judgment: Anorder to -pay £1 a month, or ; , in* default, three mouths' imprisonment. '-' "'-.-' :;■ - : . J - - - ... Police v. Withers.— - A charge of sly-grog sell- '• ing, The evidence was taken on a foriri J r Courtday, when Mr Maitlarid reserved judgment. His Worship now handed Sergeant Daly a.' Uiemo. upon the case by Mr r Maitland, and ."upon, reading it, -the Sergeant withdrew ;tlie charge..: Hislop and another v. Spencci.^A' judgment summons adjourned from a previous" Court-day:' Mr'Henderspn for plaintiff ; Mr Reid for ■ defendant. ' . *-',-•;-.;, ; . Plaintiff said ho believed the defendant' had •been .hi constant work since the judgment was .obtained. ■ Defendant said he had been off and on at work, sometimes on wages and sometimes; 1 on piece-work At the latter*' he-had made 4s 6d a a day. At last hearing he had promisedto pay 3s a. week, but had been unable to do so. : He had no settled work at present — only got a day's work now and again.- •■ His Worship said the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendant was in a position to pay. Cisc dismissed;* M'Niel v;. A. Bun.— This was a claim of £4 14s (jrl. balance due for wages. Mr Taylor for plaintiff, and Mr Reid for defendant. Defendant had paid into Court £2 lis 6d, and pleaded a set-off for the balance. The particulars were these:— The plaintiff Alexander, M'Niel, had been. an apprentice with A. Bain. Balclutha. At the time of the inden- ' tu.re heing entered into, defendant agreed to the plaintiff getting home to his father's during the harvest. H e h ad so been absen t oh two occasions, a month e.ich time;' On the last occa-., sion defendant wrote to him to returu* when' he had been .away a fortnight, but he did not do so, as he said the agreement was that ho was to set away a month each harvest: 'Defendant' said he had only agreed to his getting away, a fortnight. ,each harvest instead' of a month, and consequently withheld a month's wages for the two fortnights he : had been absent beyond that time... Plaintiff's father also gave evidence that the time specified was a month each harvest. His Worship took this latter view of the case, and gave judgment for plaintiff for £.4 3s 61; with Court costs 9.-3,. and professional fee £1 Is.' Cunningham v. Thomson. — This was an action to -recover "llie sum of '£29 3s 91, allege 1- to hav<j been got hy defendant from Douglas : Watson on plaintiff's behalf, and which he promised to pay in a few days, but failed to do Mr Reid for plaintiff ; Mr Taylor for defendant. The case arose out of a sale of cattle to Mr Watson, mnna-j-er of the hoiling down establishment, Woodlands, in 1872.- and, which was al-, leg^d t<i have been a joint venture between plaintiff, defendant, and others. Plaintiff , gave a very lucid account of the whole complications ot the transaction.: --and showed that the sum of £2' lq 9d was his share of the. profits of the transaction The money was nnitl to defendant, who, as plaintiff alleged. a-.ked him to be allowed the use of it' for a few day.* as ha had a bill to meet, and he afterwards refused 'to pay it. . . , . | , Dfifendanfc.nllegpd'thnt he had had no partner- j ship transaction with plaintiff whatever ; that he j had off^rr-d to so jointly with him in the pur- ! chase and sale of the cattle, hub he refused to do j so The transaction having occurred so long ago. hf- d'd not remember particu'ars. Mr Taylor, for the defendant, contended that t.ho evidence failed to. prove any partnership .transaction between the parties, or, if there were any, the question involved a question of accounting hefcyrpeh, partners, in which theCuurfchad no jurisdiction. ' ' His Worship reserved his decision, ■ - i.vsr/LTisro language., . - Roberts v. Kerle. — This was an information b\* the plaintiff that the defendant, on the 3rd January, did use insulting word* towards him, in ■; a public place, calculated; to create a breach of , thepf-ace. ; . „..., .... . Mr Reid for complainant, and Mr .Taylor for defendant. ' * * '' ,; ' ' *-'••■ ■i This was the* first case called when the .Court opened, at 11 o'clock. Neither the defendant nor his counsel was present. The casa was' pro" ceeded with, in their 'absence. F{i» 'Worship • ! found the charge Droved, aud inflicted; a ' fine* Of £5.*- : -'* ' •!. .-■.■"■-.-•'■. '.J* ... ,;.;-, „J, ; . -On the arrival of def-.ndant and.his counsel,, a .re-hearing -ws*s applied* for and-'gran'-Vd, and the "case .was again heard at ; the 'chiae'of the 1 oth-r---business. The evidencewas ;somewbat -lengthy, but the facts elicited were as follows : -,Cpm-. plainant, and defendant attended Ihe rai'es; sports, and bazaar at Clinton on New Year's Day, when some dispute arose -between them retgarding a mare that n.n in the Maiden, Plate. They had previously been qn very friendly terms, hut a bitter spit it seems to have been raised by the 5 dispute,- which wis ! kept up throughout the day. . At the close of tho baziar,wh'ch was,, held in complainant's wo'dshed, defenilant's i horse was standing at. the door, when complainant, drove up ih a buggy for two ladie3.He asked (as be said, in a civil manner ; and, as deiendant* said, in. a. peremptory. and insulting manner.) the. horse, to be taken away, that. the ladies might get into the. buggy. Defendant refusedto'do:no. Coihplaiha'nt then wheeled bis buggy round to get in front of the. -.horse (as the complainant, averred, bub. according, to defendant's version, to run down his horse.) '" "Def en i dant then struck complainant's horses .several times with his whip. - After complainant went home, he wrote defendant, demanding an ample apology,. and threatening, in case of refiisal. to report him" at head quarters iii Wellington' 'The parties' next met oh the 3rd, on' the verandah of Macdonald'.s * Hotel. Drfendar.t acknowledged -having then us"d insulting .words to complainant; and explained, that he was- irritated and excited by receiving what be considered a mean, cowa*. div threat to report' hun It head quarters. . His Wor.-hip reserved j ndgment,* and suggestedthat the parties; might settle the matter amicably, before next Court-da"y. '.' „','"-'' ""'_•'" This concluded the business.