CROMWELL.

Dunstan Times, Issue 644, 21 August 1874, Page 3

CROMWELL.

—o—(FROM OUR OWN" CORRESPONDENT.) The Cromwell local “pod” more familiarly known as “Joe Harris” has apparently been making lively work in the Resident Magistrates’ Court, Cromwell, by bringing a publican “ to book,’’and making sad havoc with Lindley Murray. The publican would not pay ; but the most distressing part of all to Joe was the request by his employer to remove sonqe ashes that had been left in buckets by his fellow servant—a Celestial. This was too much, and sorely touched Joe’s dignity, who contemptuously replied “Hashes < I won’t remove hashes.” Well might the presiding magistrate enquire “ What that ?” and well might the unsophisticated Joe reply “ The coal from the stove but after a deal of squaring Joe got a verdict for L2 10s, and coats of Court, and he was last seen wending his way to fields green and pastures new. The Warden made some very terse and pertinent remarks at the last sitting of th Warden's Court here as to the inattention and irregularity paid by parties who appeared as objectors) they failing to induce thedr 'objections to writing, and inv-ariably offering some plausible excuse for their non-observance of the Regulations in this respect ; and in one case their carelessness was sought to be thrown upon the Clerk to the Court, to whom it was alleged the objection had been given ; hut upc-a investigation it turned out that such was far from the fact. It would be well if mining agents and litigants when appearing would exercise a little more discretion, and refrain from indulging in rash assertions, especially when they reflect upon an officer who by virtue of his appointment is practically precluded from defending himself, and when, as in the matter now under notice the imputation is unfounded and undeserved.

The much-talked of Amateur Performance in aid of the funds of the Cromwell Hospital took place on Friday evening last, and was financially considered an unqualified success, there being close upon LSO in the house. The performance did not commence until long after the advertised time, and the “ waits ” between the pieces were inexcusably long. Tn the first piece “ Cherry Bounce” Mr Peach, as Gregory, acquitted himself remarkably well ; while Mr Snook, as the Squire, was far from up to the mark, not having the slightest conception of the part, nor the least idea as to the make-up. The lady amateur had very little to do, hut that little she did well. A musical interlude followed, when Mr Coldough rattled away on the pianoforte a few tunes, which were announced In the bills “ pianoforte selections.” Mrs Arndt is dtserving of especial mention for her excellent and finished rendering of that old but ever popular song ‘‘Home sweet Home,” This was the gem of the evening, and at its close was loudly applauded and an encore demanded. Mr Snook followed with a recitation, in which he atoned for his former shortcomings ; it was well delivered and well received. Mr Peach attempted “ Dare Devil Dick,” but either his voice was not in tune, n? the instrument would not “gee.” We do not think singing this gentleman’s forte. “Liquid Drops,” by by Messrs Prosch and Johnson was fairly given. The performance was brought to a close with “ Taming a Tiger.” Mr Brown made a capital Beeswing, evidencing both care and study, wisely preferring the author’s language to his own, which we regret to add cannot be said of Chili Chutuee (Mr Jolly) who did not stick to the text, and required the assistance of the prompter too often. Had he been mors perfect we should have been better pleased. Jacob Mutter (Mr Gilmore) did not shine to advantage. Of the ladies nothing can bo said for or against, as the gents took all the “fat” to themselves. With the best a;tors there is only c no part in Cherry

Bounce, viz., Gregory;' and two in the Tiger—Beeswing and Chili. Many better pieces might have been selected, snob as •‘Writing, on the Wall,” ‘‘Delicate Ground," “Time Tries All,” and a host of others, in which the characters could have been more evenly caste and the ladies afforded an opportunity of proving their metal. The Committee worked well, and it should be to them a source of satisfaction to feel that their efforts were appreciated by an indulgent public. The arrival of one of the “ softer sex ” iu Cromwell apparently has the effect of turning the brain of some of the good men and true belonging to that happy place—for ou Wednesday last as a young lady, who arrived by the coach, was quietly strolling down Melmore-street; tbebutebor dropped bis chopper and rushed to the door— the general merchant put down his ledger and gazed through the window—the publican came out with his blandest smile, and the housemaid indulged in a few unkind words. The unconscious stranger still continued her promenade, evidently iu quest of some one, and many were the “ young ’uns,” whoj would have given a trifle to have been favored with one sweet smile. The unknown was evidently in a dilemma, from which, however, she ' was soon rescued by a model young man, who rapturously exclaimed—- “ When beauty in distress appears, An irreilstless charm it bears. In the-Resident Magistrate’s Court the following cases wore disposed of ou Friday lust the 14th instant :

Corse v. Goodger.—This was a charge for using threatening anil abusive language towards plaintiff in a public place. Mr Cowan appeared for plaintiff, and Mr F. J. Wilson for the defendant. The evidence of plaintiff and one witness was taken, from which it appeared that the dispute arose over the settlement of an account. Mr Wil«on raised an objection to the “ place ” as not being within the meaning of the Act. Mr Cowan replied. His Worship after deliberation overruled the objection, and said the case had been proved, although more had been made of it than was necessary. Defendant would he fined 21)5., and costs of Court only. Joseph Harris v. G. M. Starkey.—Claim for wages for taking charge of billiard room during tbe absence of Mr Tronson, and for one week’s wages for wrongful dismissal, amounting to L 7 13s. Mr Cowan for plaintiff; and Mr Wilson for defendant. The plaintiff deposed that he had boon in the service of the defendant for the past four mouths. That on the 27th April, 1874, Mr Tronson, who rented the billiard table was, through sickness, .compelled to proceed to the Hospital, and Air Starkey asked him to take charge of the billiard room and it would “ be all right.’" In accordance with that arrangement he took charge of the billiard room from that date till the 2'Jth May for which ho claimed LC 15s Od ; also the LI for wages in lieu of a week’s notice. He had been up several nights and had performed his other work as usual, and the proceeds of the table were always handed to Starkey. On Saturday last defendant wanted him to clean up some “ hashes ” that had been left in the yard by the Chinaman cook His Worship, “ hashes,’’ what’s that.? AVitness, (seemingly perplexed)—the coal from the stove. I cleaned “ hup ” the yard, but did not consider it any part of my duty to clean “ hup ” the leavings of the Cook; it was his work. 1 consider L 7 15s is due to mo. By Mr Wilson—When Mr Starkey cn,gaged me, it was only to clear, the knives, and attend to the stables; nothing was mentioned about the billiard-table. After I had been there a day or two, the lamps were handed to mo to trim, and then Starkey’s boots and those of the lodgers, but this was work outside of my agreement and I did not kick against it. 1 did not leave defendant’s employ of my own accord, I was discharged by the defendant because I would not remove the “hashes.” I wa» up several nights, and on one occasion I handed Mr Starkey L 4 7s Cd being one night’s takings. On another occasion Sergeant Cassells called, and told Starkey that it was past 12 o’clock and to close up. Starkey bold witness to turn down the lamps until Cassells went away, which he did, and then Starkey brought a bottle of brandy into the room and gave it to Thomson, the blacksmith ; there was also a case of beer there, the lamps were then turned up and play resumed, and continued all night. Witness marked the game, the brandy was drunk, and soma of the beer.— E. Drury deposed that ho was in the bi! - liard-l’oom on Saturday last, when Mr Starkey dismissed the plaintiff, owing to his refusal to remove some ashes. This was the plaintiffs case.—For the defence, George Starkey, hotel-keeper was called, and stated that he had engaged plaintiff as groom, and to make himself generally useful. The men who hud before been in his service had always attended to the table at night in addition to their other duties. He had paid them front 30s to 35s a week ; but they understood horses, whereas Harris understood nothing about them when he entered his service. Had asked Harris to clean the yard. It was part of his work to remove the ashes, and as he refused he discharged him. Had not been satisfied with the conduct of the plaintiff for some time previously.—Crossexamined ; Could not say Harris was dishonest, although the returns of lata from the table had been very small. Did not state to Harris, at the time of engagement that he would be required to attend to the billiard table, but considered it part of his work. His labors were light. Was aware that he had been up several nights. Must admit that the statement concerning Cassells was correct.—Mr Tronson was called, but his evidence Was not material, only that the plaintiff looked after the room.—llls Worship was of opinion that the plaintiff had a claim against the defendant, but certainly not to the extent sued for. He believed the plaintiff entered upon the duties

upon the conviction that ho would he paid for it in addition to the other services, and the defendant not having taken steps to remove] that impression, judgment would be entered for L2 10s, and costs of Court only. Cotter v. Colquhoun.—Claim for L 49, being the value of seven head of cattle wrongfully, driven away by the defendant. Mr Cowan appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr Wilson for the defendant, who pleaded a general denial.—-Timothy Cotter being sworn, said he resided at Cardrona, and in the year 1872 he purchased Mr T. Baird’s cattle, about 15 or 18 head. The receipt produced was in the handwriting of Mr T. Baird. Did not get the cattle then, but arranged with Mr Smith, hotelkeeper at Bendigo, that he should get them at the next mustering. He subsequently heard from Smith that he had seen the defendant driving away four head of cattle bearing the brand he had bought, and he .believed ho had also taken the other three. Smith remonstrated with ‘defendant/ and informed him that he had taken plaintiffs cattle ; but he replied that he had bought tb m from Baird. The cattle were, as far as he was informed, well worth L 7 per head. He had never seen the 'cattle, as he had left them to be got in by Smith, who was in the habit of mustering. Witness subsequently saw defendant who first admitted that he had driven cattle away, and at a subsequent interview denied ever having done so.- Had not yet paid for the cattle, to Baird, and had only taken the delivery of one as the others ivco running on the station, and Smith was to take possession of thorn when they were out out. Ho was only to do so with those on M ‘Lean’s run. —By Mr Wilson : Had been up the Hunter looking for the cattle he purchased from Mr Baird, bnt could not find them.—Two other witnesses, Smith and Bussell, were called, and the Bench, without asking Mr Wilson to reply, suggested that the plaintiff should accept a non-suit, with three guineas costs, which was finally assented to. Doyle v. Goodger. question was reserved from last Court day as to the liability of a defendant to pay costs after paying into Court the amount claimed, - without giving notice to the plaintiff. His Worship said that if the application had been made before the money had been taken out of Court lire defendant would have been hold liable ; hut, seeing that it had been so taken, and the book signed, he did not feel called upon to make the order requested. The following cases came before the Warden’s Cuurt on Saturday', the 15th instant :—-

G codger- arid others v. Thomas and Tippett.— Tho Warden gave judgment in this case for defendants, with costs. Mr Cowan for complainant; Mr Wilson for defendant.

Dagg and others v. Goodger and others. Claim for LIOO, for cutting a portion of the Bannockburn Race, and for damages for breach, of contract, Mr Cowan for complainants ; Mr."Wilson for defendants. Adjourned till the 20th inst. An Gow and others v. Ritchie.—Claim L3O, as damages occasioned by having wrongfully deprived the complainants of water of which they were in legal occupation. Tho complainants signally failed in their case, and judgment was entered up for tho defendant, with costs.

A number of applications wore disposed of, and ths Court then rose.