RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2118, 18 February 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Dat. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Cmii Casks. Kirkpatrick v. Hydes. Judgment for the plaintiff by default. Brown.v. Foster.—A claim for Ll3 7s 6d, damage to a bnggy and horse. Mr Wilson for the plaintiff. Judgment by consent for the amount. Fish v. Turnbull.—LlO 3s 6d, for rent. Mr Bathgate for the plaintiff. Judgment by consent for the amount. Hanslow and Sampson v. Heighten.—Ll 9 5s 6d. Judgment for the plaintiff by default. Several oases were dismissed for nonappearance. Smith v. Barr.—A claim for one month's wages at L 35 per annum in lieu of notice. Mr Harris for the plaintiff. From the evidence it appeared that Mrs Smith was recommended to the defendant as a servant by Mrs Crawford, of the Immigration depot. She engaged for a month. At the end of the week Mrs Smith expressed a wish to leave, and being told she might go, she replied she would not, without her wages. The plaintiff and defendant did not agree as to the conversation that took place, and there was no one present to give evidence. His Worship thought the balance of admissions on each side were in favor of the defendant. Judgment tor the defendant. Elliott and others r. Hunter. —Mr Harris for the defendant. Three pounds was paid into Court. This was an action brought to recover payment for sixty-six loads of earth carted on to the defendant’s property in Graham street. The defendant admitted having received forty loads. The price agreed upon was, according to the evidence of Elliott, Is 6d per load, and it was alleged that 6d per load in addition was to be paid to the Corporation,—The defence was, that the defendant had only bargained for forty loads, and that the extra twenty-six loads, if put upon the ground, were placed there without authority. - His Worship thought the weight of evidence was in favor of the plaintiff’s view, although he was not satisfied with the matter. At any rate, defendant had reaped the benefit of the work, and he thought the plaintiff should be paid. Judgment for plaintiff for the amount —LS 12s. JUDGMENT. Dixon v. Winton. —The claim in this case was for damage done to the plaintiff’s property by a fire lit on the defendant’s ground by certain men who were employed constructing a fence. His Worship gave judgment as follows ; " 1 have carefully considered the point raised by the defendant’s counsel os to whether under the circumstances detailed in tho evidence the relation of master and servant existed between the defendant and the witnesses Pearce aai Bennett, who, appa-

rently, were, one or both, the actual authors of the mischief done. The question appears to bo, whether Pearce, with whom alone, according to the evidence, the arrangement was made, is to be considered as the defen* dant’s servant, or as a contractor exerc;sing an independent employment. The evidence before me shows, 1 think that the latter is the correct view. Pearce was according to the evidence of Winton—and that was not in any way disturbed - a person exercising an independent employment in the erection of this fence, and not an ordinary labourer, tenders having been called for, and one accepted in the regular way. The nature of the employment may sometimes be a test as to whether the person employed was a servant or an independent contractor, but I think the test here is whether the defendant retained the power of controlling the work. Ido not think that the circumstance of the defendant giving the men his barn to sleep in could in any way ati'eot the question, as in country places, it is, I understand, almost invariably the custom for the employer to provide shelter for a contractor during the course of the work. In cases like the present no doubt the distinctions are of the nicest order, but keeping the whole circumstances in view, I can only come to the conclusion that the relation in this instance was that of contractor and contractee, not that of master and servant. Judgment for defendant,”