RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3634, 6 March 1883, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT.

This Day. (Before Captain Prcecu, 11.M.) DKUN'KEXXESS. James Griffon was put forward on remand charged with drunkenness. said lie did not consider °the prisoner iit to be at large. The rumi was quite stupid, evidently insane, and could not walk without being pushed along. He was no butter than when remanded to the gaol for drunkenness a week ago. CIVIL CASES. Maedonald v. Eoskrudge.—Adjourned case. Claim £9 Bs. Judgment for plaintiff for £6 -Is Gd, with costs and witnesses expenses. De Lisle v. O'Regan.—Claim £20 lls Gd for professional attendance and medicines. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed, with costs and counsel's fee £1 Is. Mr Lascelles for the plaintiff. Foreman v. Manahia Tini. — Claim £5 0s Sd for goods. Mr McLean for the plaintiff. Defendant denied the correctness of the claim, and produced an account furnished to him in 1880. He also disputed some of the items. Mr McLean said there was an error in the addition of the account furnished in 18S0 which was subsequently corrected; the items were correct. Judgment was given for the amount claimed, with costs and counsel's fee £1 Is. Same v. Henare Tomoana. —Claim £10 10s 10d for goods. Mr M'Lean for the plaintiff. Defendant asked for an adjournment to Friday week to enable him to hunt up a receipt. His Worship said there was ample time for that since the service of the summons on 23rd February. Mr M'Lean suggested that judgment .should be given now, subject to execution being stayed to enable the defendaat to produce his receipt if he had one. His "Worship said ho would grant an adjournment to the 20th instant, the defendant to pay the cost of adjournment, also costs of the day forthwith— £1 3s in all,

A COOK IN TROUBLE. Hutchings v. Tuck.—Claim £b ss, for wages due. Defendant said he was only indebted to the extent of £1 2s (3d, which amount he had offered the plaintiff in the presence of witnesses. That was for a balance due of two weeks' wages. Plaintiff said he went to Mr Tuck as cook on sth February at 35s per week. When there one week he found they could not agree, and it was arranged mutually that a week's notice should be given. On the Friday following Tuck's wife asked plaintiff if ho would not like to remain. He said he would, providing he had a better understanding with Mr Tuck, and explained what'his grievance was. Mr Tuck came to witness afterwards, and said if he liked he could go on again, and things would be made right. Witness then agreed to stay on, but on the followSunday morning they had a further disagreement, and witness agreed to leave tho next day if his account was made up. Defendant objected to this and demanded a week's notice, which witness gave him. At tea time on Monday defendant, who had been to town and brought a new cook with him, offered to pay witness off, but witness, after what had transpired the day before, refused to take tho amount that was tendered to him, and demanded a week's pay in lieu of notice in addition to the fortuight that was due to him. The witness was cross-examined by the defendant as to the number of times he had left the hotel, and put him (defendant) to inconvenience during the few weeks he was there, also as to several sums of money and drinks he had had on account. He thought there was rather more charged against him than he had. He did not think his drinks would average 2s 6d a day. On the day before he was discharged lie refused to cook for a lady and gentleman who arrived later than the regular tea time. The defendant being sworn, said it was a part of their agreement that the plaintiff while in his service should not come into Napier without leave. On the Sunday after coming to the hotel plaintiff left his work shortly after dinner, and started oft" on horseback, leaving the others in the house to do his work as best they could. Next day witness gave him notice to leave, and plaintiff said he would leave, and gave some impertinence. On Thursday ho got an hour's leave to go to Tomoana, and took over four hours instead. Again on the following Sunday evening, despite orders to the contrary, the plaintiff went away again, and did *not return until 5 o'clock on Monday morning. There was no agreement between them for plaintiff to stay on at the hotel further than that Hutchings one day said to witness, " If you have no one comingin my place I will stay until you have." To this the witness rejoined that if he did stay he would have to conduct himself better. No second engagement ever took place. Iv answer to tho defendant the Court said it would not be necessary to call any further evidence. His Worship remarked that the defendant was perfectly justified in dismissing the plaintiff without any notice whatever, as he had loft his duties without permission. He could not allow tho set-oft claimed for liquors supplied, as that was prohibited by the Act. Judgment would therefore be for the plaintiff for £2 lGs, being two weeks' wages, less Ms advanced on account, tho costs to be divided. The Court then rose. A number of other civil wero either settled or withdrawn.