RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 2037, 15 November 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tins Dav. (Before d.C. Strode, Esq., it.M.J DISORHERLV. Joseph Scott and .Tames Hill were charged by Constable Bevan, with lighting at the Princess Theatre on Saturday evening. It appeared that Scott is doorkeeper at the Theatre, and the quarrel and sub equent light arose from the interference by Hill with Scott in the execution of his duty. Scott was lined ss, and Hill 20s, with costs. STEALING EUO.M A SHOP. Pel or Guthrie was charged with stealing a shoulder of mutton from the shop of the City Company. •He was seen to take the meat away to Mr Woodman. It was the lirst complaint against the prisoner, and lie was committed to the Dunedin Gad for one month, with hard labor. On his person a bench of keys was found that had the appearance of belonging to S' inc largo establishment. He adirmed that he had brought them with him from England, and that they opened his boxes.

Civil Cases. The following oases were given in favor of the plaintiffs by default : —G. Collins v. Alex Jam o', 18s; Peter Allen v. John Cooper, L2 10s Gd. John Allen v. William Fidler.—A cl dm for L 5 damages for assault. Mr Ward for the defendant. The plaintiff made a long statement showing that on .Saturday week he was with a friend in the defendant’, house, when in consequence of a d spnL about the reckoning be was turned out of j ihe house and kicked. He claimed 1.5 for injury to his feelings. A witne s was brought to prove tie as-anlt, who said that he believed tlm iilaintiM" threw a stone through Fidler’s window from the outside. For the defence Mr Fidler said the plaintiff’ and a a.mpa .ion wnit inti the bar, it appeared afterwards : n a drunken state, and lie refused to pay for drink ordered, using at the same tme very abusive language. He was turned out by witness, who used no mors force than was necessary. After the plaintiff win expelled the ‘ house lie took up a stone from the road and tiling it through a window. His worship considered the defendant jnstdied in what he did. Verdi t for the defendant.—The plaintiff was brought by a constable into court and placed in the box for using abusive language. He apologised for his misconduct and was dismissed. Thos. Gregg v. Geo. Prondfoot. —An ad-journ-d c»«c. Mr Harris for the plaintiff; Mr Ward for the defendant. The plaintiff claimed a balance of L3O 17s 7d, due to him ns foreman over works during the building of a bridge at Hampden. There was a ero ; s action for LI2. The plaintiff is a stonemason, and had supei intended the execution of a contract entered into by Mr Prondfoot with the Provincial Government to construct a bridge. The point in dispute was one of wage a - the plaintiff claiming L 5 10s a week, while the defendant only tendered L 4. The difference in the rate of wages was claimed on account of the work being distant from Dunedin Ho had superintended for the defendant’s brother at the Dunedin works, where he had had L 5 per week. There was no spccilic agreement made as to what the rate of wages should bo. The defendant never refused to pay the amount claimed until about a fortnight ago, when he refused to do so as the job was a losing one to him. —ln cross-examination by Mr Ward, the plaintiff’ said ho knew nothing of the Ll2 claimed by the defendant as the difference between i 38 due to him and 1/50 paid him on account. He received L 4 a week as a mason when working at t)ie dock at Port Chalmers.—Mr D. Hunter, contractor, said | as overseer ho had LG a week from M‘Kay j and Goudfcllow during the building of the Post Office. It was common to pay a pound a week extra for a superintendent of works up the country. He was paying L 5 10s a week to an overseer at present. The plaintiff’was a competent man as over eer. No ue but a competent man could carry out the work at tbe bridge, which was not nibblewall ing but faced adilar. —A witness named Wall was call d, who had charge of the quarry, and had 12s a day. Air Gregg was a competent man to carry on work which he (witness) was not equal to. For tbe defence it was stated that an agreement was entered into with the plaintiff at L 4 a week. When paying the men off, he was going to write out the che ,ue for L3S, but on tbe applicaI tion of the plaintiff he wrote it out for LSO, on condition that Ll2 should bo repaid. He had never been asked for a settlement, although he _ did not know what was said by tno plaintiff on Saturday week, when he f it annoyed when he spoke to him. In cross-examina-tion, the defendant said he engaged Gregg to be a working overseer, at L 4 a week. There were no men regularly employed but him on the bridge. H,e had two other bridges building at the time. He hael no receipt for the LI2, never having taken a receipt from a “ wages man. ’’ He had made no promise to go down to Port Chalmers to settle the account. When he was annoyed, it was not by Gregg speaking to him. Samuel Packham, contractor, considered 13s a day would be fair wages for tbe responsibility at Hampden. If a larger job, 15s a day would be fair. At the time bricklayers received 25s a day, he paid Ids foreman 15s a day wet and dry. He did not entirely leave his foreman without his person d siqicrvision.- John Barnes, Inspector of Works put up a bridge near Hampden four years ago, and paid L 3 10s a week. If it was masonry work, an oveeseer would rcquire a better rate of pay thin if it was rubble work. He was paying a foreman L 4 a week for a bridge up the country when he was paying masons IGs a day. As a foreman got paid for In’s whole time while masons were only paid during actual work, a foreman would frequently accept an apparently less rate of wages. Air Cornwell, c utractor, had paid L 9 a week —sometimes 1.6. It depended upon responsibility and arrangement. He considered a pound a day would be sufficient where there was so much responsibility. L 4 a week would be little enough, certainly not too much. His Worship said taking the evidences as a whole, on account of the responsibility he considered the plaintiff en idled to 1.5 a week. Judgment for nlaintiff, L2O 7s 7d. Yates v. Spears.—-A claim for LI 18 3 , bahncoof wages account. dhe defendant paid 1,3s into court, and pleaded not indebted for the remainder. dhe plaintiff’ is a stonemason and the difference between him and t' o deb-nd nt was a question of wages. The defendant said the m>n was not worth more than 10s a day as a workman. He had built a wall live inches out of level in 30 feet. His Worship said he appeared to have made n-e of the plaintiff as a mason, and lie therefore was entitled to ordinary mason’s wages of 12s per day. Judgment for the plaintiff LI 18s with costs.