RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Cromwell Argus, Volume III, Issue 134, 4 June 1872, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thursday, May 30. (Before E. 11. Carew, Esq., R.M. ; and James Ilazlelt, Esq., J.P.) S LAUGHTER-HOU3 K LICE NSE. The application of Owen Pierce (renewal) was granted. ASSAULT. Edward Harding v. Alfred Short.—’The plaintnote in this case set forth that the defendant, who is the licensee of the Reefers’ Arms Hotel at Carrickton, did, on Friday, the 24th May, assault the complainant by striking him on the face with his clenched fist. Mr W. W. Wilson, for the defendant, pleaded not guilty. Mr Allauby, counsel for plaintiff, asked for an adjournment of the hearing, on the ground that his client had been uuable'to secure the attendance of important witnesses in time for that day’s sitting of the Court. Mr Wilson objected to any postponement unless costs were paid by the plaintiff. The Bench regretted that the plaintiff was unable to go on with the case, as an adjournment would involve considerable expense. They were content, however, to allow an adjournment on payment of the costs of the day,—viz., 10s for one witness, and €2 2s , solicitor’s fee. The hearing was accordingly adjourned for a week. G. T. STEPHENSON V, BANK OF NEW SOUTH WALES. In this ease the Resident Magistrate had on the previous Court-day deferred his decision, and now gave the following judgment “ This case is brought by plaintiff to recover from defendant £SO, as damages for alleged improper dismissal, without notice or just cause, from a clerkship in the defendants’ agency at Cromwell. From the evidence adduced, it appears that the plaintiff had been in the service of the defendant for about six years, at the West! Coast, at Dunedin, and ultimately at Cromwell, ! at which agency he had served for some twelve months ; that on the 31st January, Mr Preshaw, j the agent, informed him that he was instructed to request him to resign, and then told him that I he had reported him to the Bank manager at Dunedin. The plaintiff declined to resign, and telegraphed to the manager at Dune liu asking that he might be called there. He was, however, dismissed. The evidence of the manager of the Dune liu Branch, Mr Miller, sh >ws that he was dismissed by him, or l>y his instructions, on the grounds of carelessness, and inattention to his duties ; further, that while in Dunedin, he had occasion repeatedly to find fault with him for gross carelessness and inattention to his 1 duties, and that just prior to the plain iff remov-! ing to the Cromwell agenev, he (.Mr Miller) cant I tioned the plaintiff that if he gave the agen- I there cause of complaint, he would most"as- ! snredly have to leave the service of the Bank. . Mr Nasmyth, the accountant of the Bank, has; deposed that the plaintiff, while in Dunedin, j conducted himself habitually in a grossly careless i manner as regards his work, amt was severely | censured by him. Plaintiff’s solicitor, Mr W. 1 i W. Wilson, argues that the conduct of plain- ! till while in Dunedin, if bad, was condoned, ! and c mid not be used against him in this ease. But, from the manager’s evidence, it was not ; condoned, but allow ed to hang over him, with i the c intioii that if ho gave fresh cause of com- | plaint, he would most assuredly have to leave 1 the service. Mr Preshaw, in his evidence, says that for a few months af er plaintiff's arrival at Cromwell, he was very attent ve to his duties, but subsequently became careless in his work, which he afterwards explains in cross-examiua-! lion as careless in his writing. There is not at aay rate sufficient before the Court in this re- | spect to justify his summary dismissal from that c inse. The other go.md given for his dismissal is that he was repeatedly fi.te in c lining to the office in the morning. Upon this point, Mr Preshaw swears that he tola the plaintiff to be at the office at half-past nine or a quarter to ten, but had he opened the office nt later than ten he would not have complained, lie says further i tliat plaintiff came as near to ten as pos ible, but ; which he explained by stating that he w.is rarely j ever before that time; that fie was frequently five or ten minutes after ten. That ho spoke to i him frequently about his being late, and <m one i occasion wrote a letter to report him to Dunedin, I b'B which he afterwards destroyed on the plain--1 till promising not to bo late for the fut ire ; and : that after this the plaintiff’ was worse than ever, which culminated on the 4th January by his not putting in an appearaum at the Bank until half pist ten. On this occasion the plaintiff was rep irtod to Dunedin for carelessness and coutinui ally being late to work. He was asked to resign, i and upon refusal was dismissed. Tocre can be ; no question that the Bank had a right to expect i punctuality in the plaintiff’s attendance ; and I find from the evidence that the plaintiff was habitually negligent in that respect, and must therefore give judgment against him.” Mr Brough, counsel for defendants, aske.l for professional costs to the amount of £3 3s. The Bank had incurred heavy expense in connection I with the case, and he submitted that it was only i right the plaintiff should pay the costs asked | for. i Mr M ilson objected, chiefly on tire ground that j repeated adjournments of the case had been j granted for the convenience of the defend rnts. The Resident Magistrate said that although i the plaintiff Was legally dismissed from the service of the Bank, the latter had acted with some degree of harshness in depriving him of his sitnai tion without a moment’s notice ; and it was pr i- ; liable that if he (plaintiff) had been i i the ser- , vice of a private firm, lie would have been cnI titled to some pecuniary consideration on account of his summary dismissal. The Bench I could not, under fhe circumstances, allow professional costs as against the plaintiff, who would, however, have to pay costs of Court, amounting i to 255. W. EDWARDS V. DRAPER. | In this case the affidavit of service of summons upon defendant (who resides at Tuapeka) not having been returned, the hearing was postponed till Thursday, June ii. CHARLES WILLIAMS V. ,T. HARDING. Plaintiff claimed payment by defendant of | sixteen weeks’ wages, at 3Us. per week (£24), for I services rendered in connection with the building ' of the Reefers’ Arms Hotel at Carrickton.

Mr Brough for plaintiff; Mr Wilson for defendant. The plaintiff, who is at present engage 1 as a butcher and publican at Bendigo, deposed that on the 14th of December last he was engaged by the defendant to “look after” some building materials which were removed from Logantown to Carriekton to be used in the re-erection of the Keefers’Anns Hotel. For this service plaintiff was to be paid lids, per week, and provided with board and lodging. The defendant denied having made any such j agreement as that stated by plaintiff, alleging! that he had undertaken to provide board and lodging for the plaintiff in consideration of the latter taking charge of the building materials whilst the hotel was being erected. He wrs cpiite willing to pay the plaintiff for any work uoue if it was properly accounted for. Witnesses on both sides were examined and cross-examined at considerable length. The Bench considered the claim proved, and judgment was .given for the full amount claimed, together with 255. Court costs and £2 2s. professional fees. THE CHARGE OF PERJURV. The adjourned case, J fraud's v. Kidd > came on for rehearing. The Resident Magistrate stated that as the Bench had some doubt as to the materiality of; the evidence given by the accuse ! in the Warden’s Court, they would recall tlie prosecutor and examine him on the point in question. In order to substantiate a charge of perjury, there 1 must be something in the sworn testimony of the accused which would tend to affect the deci- i sion of the matter before the Court at the time such evidence was given. John Francis, the prosecutor, (recalled by the Court): —The accused gave evidence for the <le- 1 fence in Frauds v. Kidd. In that defence I en- [ deavoured to prove that accused had sold a half : share in the Star of the Fast claim for £75. If j accused had received £75, he would have been | in funds to pay the calls. 1 consider that if he ' had not been in funds, 1 would have had to pay \ the calls due on the share 1 claimed. 1 knew ’ that no profit except the £75 had arisen from | the share up to the time I made the claim. Charles Colelough, sharebroker, examined by Mr Wilson : —1 was present m Court on the 9th November during the hearing of the case Frauds : v. Kidd: Mr Wilson was acting for Francis. 1 recollect his asking Mr K idd if he had e’’cr sold a share in the Star of the Hast claim. That was the same in which Francis was then claiming to have an interest. The question was asked the ; accused several times, and he stated that he had never sold nor offered for sale any share or part of a share in that claim, and the whole of the I share was still his property. He was cautioned ■ by Mr Wilson to be very particular in his answer, i as it was important. My memory is exact because I had before that perinds.cn a sale-note 1 from Kidd the accused to Fauvel for an interest in a claim therein cafe I the Fvening Star, but explained to me to he ihe same claim as the one then in dispute. t- ro s-exnmined : I have not the slightest in- ! forest in this prosecution. Francis does not owe | me a fraction- fam not assut'ng him in this I prosecution. I have a distil.ct recollect! »u o: the proceedings before the Warden’s Court in the j c ise of Francis v. Kidd. The subs t nice of the j question put was, “ Had he sold any share in j the Star of the East claim ?” The words of the | r;ply, as I b fore stated, were “that be had! never sold any share or portion of a share in that I claim.” Mr Brough was cn louvHiring to show | that Francis had never na le payments on ac-i count of a portion of the share that ho cla me I. j with the view of disputing the validity of his demand. Francis gave evidence that Kind was in funds from the sale of half a share in the claim, i by producing a letter (referring to such a sale)' from Howe to Francis. Kidd’s assertion “that; he had never sold” any share or portion of a I share, was given in c mseqiience of the matter | above referred to with the view of showing that! he was not in funds. 1 can t remember who it; was first put the question, but I believe it was Mr Wilson. I have not, to the best of my reco'lec-1 tion, spoken to Fauvel on this matter since the hearing at Clyde on Saturday. The question, j “Have you sold within twelve months ?” may 1 have been asked, but the other question—“ Have 1 you ever sold ?”—certainly was asked. 1 believe the document now shown me marked 1) to i be the same document as the sale-note refened \ to in my evidence. James Stuart, before being sworn, asked for bis expenses as he had been put to an expense of; £1 in consequence of being summoned to give j evidence, Mr Wilson altered him 10s., which] ho refused to take, as Francis had promised to give him £l. Francis then gave him the £l, j and lie immediately handed tue am unit to the i Clerk of the Court as a donation to the Hospital. j Witness was then sworn and gave evidence as i follows : — I am an hotel-keeper and ferry-owner i at Bannockburn Ferry. I am one of the direc- 1 tors of the Stay of the Fast Company. I know ■ the position of the ground held by the Company. I recollect the ground shortly after it was taken up. We used to call it the Evening Star, and sometimes the Holden Star. Mr Wilson said that this was the case for the prosecution. Mr Brough briefly address3l the Bench in defence, contending that there was nothing before the Court to show that his client had ever s dd, either to Fauvel or any one else, any interest in the S,ar of the Fast claim even up to the present time. He submitted tint the charge of perjury against the .accused had not been p-oved, and characterised the prosecution as the most | cruel tiling ever known in tiie district. I The Court adjourned for a brief interval to j enable their Worships to confer together as to | their decision. Cn the re-opening of the Court, the Resident Magistrate stated that both Mr Ha/.lett and himself concurred in the opinion that the charge' was not proved, and the information was therefore dismissed.

On W eunesday last, three sergeants and fourteen constables of the Police Force in Dune liu refused to perform duty, in corse juunoe of the Provincial Council having refused to increase their wages, and also because they considered that invidious distinctions had been drawn between them and the warders of the Gaol. The Government declined to accede to ihe request for an increase of pay, and all who took part in the strike were dismiss? 1,