RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 2051, 1 December 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Dat. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) DRUNKARDS, Wm. Glen, for drunkenness, was fined 10s or 24 hours’ imprisonment.—W. P. Wilson and Mary Kerry, on bail, 10s each.—James Beattie, who was very violent on being arrested, and who kicked at one and tore the dress of another constable, was fined 235, or 48 hours’ imprisonment, and ordered to pay L 3, the value of the dress, or to bo imprisoned 10 days. Civil Cases, JUDGMENTS BY DEFAULT. George Rodgers v. E. Huntley, 18s; same v. Phillip Ashton, L2 9s 6d. DEFENDED CASES. W. Wilson v. W. Thomson.—A claim for L2 ss, being Ll 10s, balance of wages as servant at the Red Lion Hotel, and Ll 15s in lieu of notice, and for board. Ll had been received on account. The plaintiff was a billiard marker, and in consequence of a quarrel with the cook had given notice to leave. A misunderstanding took place about wages, the plaintiff stating that he had agreed to stay at 15s a-week, and commission on the table, and the defendant at 10s.—His Worship said the evidence was so unsatisfactory that he was unable to ascertain the truth ; he had no alternative but to give a verdict for the defendant. Judgment accordingly. The defendant refused to pay the hearing fee, and was severely reprimanded. Manning v. Fraser, Lls. —Adjourned to this day fortnight. John Dick and Samuel Lister v. Henderson, L2O, for loss sustained through breach of agreement to supply a lithographic drawing.—Mr Stewart for the plaintiffs ; Mr Wilson for the defence. From the evidence of the plaintiffs it appeared that they had arranged for Henderson to draw on stone the design of an illuminated almanack for 1870, and the manuscript of a circular announcing that the new firm intended going into lithographic printing. It was agreed that the design for the almanack should be executed for L 9, and 10s for the sketch ; and it was represented to the defendant that both the almanack and circular were wanted at once The sketch was submitted for approval on the evening of the sth Novemh.r ; on the 6th Mr Lister told defendant it was approved, and he might go on lithographing it. He asked for the stone ; an express was sent for it by him, and it was delivered to defendant that afternoon. On the following Friday, on Mr Lister calling on Henderson, he found him engaged on a plan of the Botanical Gardens. On inquiring why their work was delayed, he excused himself by saying that it was a prize plan of the gardens, and must be delivered on the following day. He remonstrated with him on the delay, and he promised to go on. On the Tuesday, instead of going on with the work, Mr Lister found him engaged on a plan of Roslyn, for Ferguson and Mitchell. That evening the defendant called to ask the cost of printing a label, and was again pressed to proceed with the work, and told that the plaintiffs objected to his doing any farther work until their order was executed. On the Wednesday he called for a stone on which to draw Messrs Hay Brothers and Wright’s shop. He got the stone, made the drawing, and put his imprint upon it. It was delivered at the office of Mills, Dick, and Co, on Friday. Mr Lister objected to bis putting to his name “ Litho,” as it was not true. Had he designated himself “Deli,” no objection would have been made. His name was taken out of the sketch, on observing which the defendant, with an oath, said he would do no more work for the firm, and threatened to make them “ sweat for it.” He could not afterwards he found, nor was he seen until the 27th, when he called and presented an account for completing the almanack, although it was not complete, as other five stones required to be drawn. He boasted “ that he had promised to make them sweat for their conduct, and he had done so.” No one in the town could do the work except Mr Henderson. The loss sustained was in consequence of not being able to move in announcing the partnership, nor to ask for orders. L2O would not cover the actual loss. In cross-examination, Mr Lister said the action was commenced the same day the last drawings were supplied. —A hoy gave evidence that he heard Mr Henderson say he would make Mr Lister sweat for taking his name off Hay Brothers and Wright’s drawing.—Mr Wilson asked for a non-suit, on the ground that the plaintiffs had not done what was necessary to enable them to bring an action.—The defendant' had a lien on the stone for his work, they refused to pay the money when it was asked, and they had not proved the work was not done. —Mr Stewart replied.—His Worship considered considered that time was an ele ment in the contract, and that the contract was not executed in a reasonable time.—Mr Wilson addressed the Court for the defence, during which Mr Lyster interrupted him by some remarks, that called for a rebuke from the Magistrate. Wr Wilson contended that reasonable time had not elapsed for the execution of the order, that the plaintiffs bad condoned the delay by allowingdefcndanttodo other work from which they derived a profit, and that the circular was abandoned by mutual agreement. The defendant said ho agreed to do the work for LlO. Mr Lister

asked the time it would require, and defendant said, about three weeks. No objection was made, as it was said they would not want it earlier than December, It was not agreed that he should put by other work. The Botanical Gardens plan occupied a day, Ferguson and Mitchell’s job about an hour. He worked twelve hours a day on the work, but had he worked only eight hours, three weeks would have been required. Defendant said Mr Lister had frequently taken out his name, and he told him if he persisted in doing so he would work no more for him. He replied, “ All right, my boy; there are other men to be had.” The stone for the circular was returned on the 12th. In crossexamination, the defendant said he got two etters and a summons on the 22nd. The almanack was then fininished, with the exception of two views which Mr Lister had to supply. Mr Lister had done him several little dirty tricks, which caused him to say he would work no more for him. He was annoyed because he himself was a lithographer, while Mr Lister was] a lithographic printer. Ho meant when he said “ho had made thorn sweat for it, and had done it effectually,” that he had put them about by refusing to stop the drawing of the almanack to do other work for them. —Mr Spreat, Government lithographic artist, said the work m laid before him would be a fair three weeks’ work. A pound a day would poor remuneration for an artist.—His Worship considered that with regard to the drawing for the almanack, the evidence tended to show that sufficient time had not been given, but that with regard to the circular unnecessary delay had occurred, and the plaintiffs were entitled to compensation. Judgment for the plaintiffs, L 5. [Left sitting.]