RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 1949, 4 August 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Dav. (Before A. Chetham-Strode, Esq., R.M.) DRUNK AND DISORDERLY.

W. Joss was lined 10s for drunkenness. John Currie, on a similar charge, was lined 40s, and Martin Collar, 20s or 48 hours’ imprisonment. A CORRECTION. *7S. His Worship wished to remark that in the report of the proceedings in Regina v. Henningham that appeared in the Daily Timpx of this morning, he was stated to have said, “ That in that case he was aoring magisteri ally.” It must atmly have been a misprint, for what he did say was, that he was acting, “ minist rially, ” and not judicially. Of course on that Bench, he was always acting “magisterially,” but not always “minis terially,” and sometimes he was acting “judicially.” He wished the error to be corrected. Civil Cases. A. G. Allan v. Freeman.—This was an action brought to recover half the cost of a dividing fence between the property of th; plaintiff and defendant Mr W. D. Stewart for the plaintiff, Mr Wilson for the defendant.

Mr A. G. Allan in his evidence stated that he was the owner of 32 acres of section 1, block 2, Dunedin and bast laieri, and that the defendant owned the adjoining property. That he gave the defendant notice that he intended to put up a fence between the two properties on the 23rd February last. The fence was put up by the plaintiff with the con ent of the def ndant, to whom the former gave seeds for thorns to he planted, and room was left for a ditch. On application for payment, the defendant objected on the ground that he had no money. The plaintiff said he would take a promissory note, but the defendant declined to give it.—ln crossexamination by Mr Wilson, the plaintiff did not know of his own knowledge that the fence put up complied with the requirements of the Fencing Ordinance.—Hie defendant was called by Mr Stewart, and said that he told Mr Allan, when he saw that he had put up one half of the fence, he might as well put up the other. The fence was not put up as it should be. It was not in the proper line.—ln cross-examination by Mr Wilson, the defendant said that some of the posts or standards were loose, the wrinkles were not out of the wires, and the fence swung about. He could grasp the wires together. He thought Mr Allan had been hacking the backside of the fence, so that his heifers could not get through. He .hould not object to pay his share of the fence hadit been a good one.—Andrew Mason, fencer, who put up the fence, confirmed the evidence of the plaintiff.—His Worship considered the fence was not put up in strict accordance with the Ordinance, and should recommend the plaintiff to accept a nonsuit -Mr >tewarfc agreed to the suggestion, and a nonsuit was recorded ; the plaintiff to pay costs. Dawbarn v. Guthrie ami Asher.—A claim or I 52, for three months’ salary as traveller. „ „ . Mr Barton for the plaintiff ; Mr Hams for the defendants.

The defendants paid TA 17s into court, and pleaded not indebted for the remainder. Mr Barton stated the case. It was one of summary dismissal. The plaintiff was traveller to Messrs Guthrie and Asher, and those gentb.ru n finding that, on account of the state of the roads, he would not be able to do trade in the country for three months, dismissed him without notice. Mr Barton argued that the position which the plaintiff held in the establishment entitled him to three months’ notice.

The plaintiff, Dawbarn, said he hod been in the employ of Guthrie and Asher for seven months. On his return from a journey, he had some conversation with Mr Guthrie, who, on account of the little trade doing at this season of the year, told him that they could no‘. find him further employment. Mr Guthrie declined to pay him for a longer period than to the 19th June, the day of his return from the country. His engagement with Mr Guthrie was at the rate of L 3 a week, which was to be raised to L 4 if the plaintiff suited. Mr Guthrie, on dismissing the plaintiff, gave him a letter, expressing approval of the manner in which he had discharged his duties. He knew of a traveller leaving a Melbourne firm who gave three mouths notice. He claimed three mouths’ salary. In cross-examination by Mr Harris, the witness said at the time of his engagement no other terms were mentioned but a weekly salary. He was not engaged formally as a commercial traveller. The salary was raised within the past month. He was about three months and a half away up the country and the remainder of his time he was in town managing the yard, and for a short time collecting accounts in the town.- Mr Harris for the defence held that the engagement was merely a weekly hiring, and that the plaintiff was not specially engaged as traveller. Mr Guthrie, of the firm of Guthrie and Asher, said the plaintiff applied for employment as manager of the yard, and he was engaged in that capacity and as salesman. He was engaged by the week. Mr W Bell once went up the country for the firm, and on account of a refusal to allow commission on some sales he left at the end of a week without notice. Mr Black, of the firm of Black and Thomson, said their practice was to engage their employes weekly, and to dismiss them at a week’s notice, or on payment of a week’s wages. Judgment for the amount paid into Court, the plaintiff paying costs.