RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2283, 31 August 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Cases. South v. Scott—A claim of LI 10s, a balance of account for rent. The debt was admitted, but the defendant pleaded inability to pay through inconstancy of employment. Judgment by consent for the plaintiff. Simpson and Asher v. Lockwood.—LM log 3d, balance of account for meat supplied Judgment by default for plaintiffs with costs.

Same v. John M'Allister —L 9 16s 2d, balance of account. The amount was ad* mittcd to be correct. Judgment by consent for the plaintiffs for the amount with costs. Carter v. Robt. Dodds —I I 2s. Judgment by default for the plaintiff with costs. Muirhead v. Wahlquest—Llß 16s Bd, for a cpiaotity of piles, at 4d per foot. Judgment by default for the plaintiff with costs. Seaton v. Campbell—L2o. The sum of L2 19s was paid into Court, Mr Kenyon for the defendant, Mr Bathgate for the plaintiff. Alex. Seaton said, on the 2nd March last he engaged as general servant with the defendant, at 2. r >s a week. After being eight weeks in his service, the plaintiff reduced his wages to LI per week, at which reduced rate of wages he continued thirteen weeks. He had only received L2 13s Gd on account of wages. For the defence, it was stated that a settlement of account took place on the 9th July. The plaintiff signed a receipt on settlement of the account, acknowledging himself indebted to the defendant in the sum of L 3 14s Gd. The defendant was narrowly cross-questioned by Mr Bathgate, and appeared totally unable to give particulars respecting the alleged settlement of the account. He admitted writing the receipt, and signing it at the request of the plaintiff, who not being able to w ite,

made a cross. It was signed in his bedroom at five o’clock in the morning. Hannah Coates, housekeeper to the defendant, said she saw the plaintiff sign the receipt produced. His Worship gave judgment for the plaintiff for the amount paid into Court. Knowles v. Rodgers.—L3s. Mr Bathgate for the plaintiff; Mr Macassey for the defendant. The plaintiff is an articled seaman on board the barque Indus, and in his evidence said he entered on the 18th May, under an engagement to serve for six mouths. The defendant was master of the ship. In June last, the ship was in the harbor of Port Chalmers, and the plaintiff ■w as sentenced by the Resident Magistrate there to twenty-one days’ imprisonment for fighting. He left on board a chest containing a quantity of clothing, which with the chest were worth more than L3O. The Indus left, and on returning to the Port the plaintiff met the defendant, and asked about his clothes, when the defendant told him that he had put the chest on board the Cincinnatus, and required him to return to his ship and serve his articles. He had never recovered his clothes. He requested a seaman named Allen to ask the captain to send his clothes to the police station. A seaman named Cray said that he and a man named Abbot put the chest ou board the Cincinnatus by orders of the mate and Mr M'Kinnon. For the defence Mr Macassey pleaded nonliability of the captain, on the ground that he gave no instructions respecting the ch fit, and whatever was done was without his knowledge and in accordance with the desire of the plaintiff. The defendant said that on going t> sea he had inquired what had become of the man’s clothes, and was told that the chest had been put on board the Cincinnatus, and he stated it ought not to have been done. He had heard that the chest had been stolen. Josh. Greenwood, mate of the Indus, said lie gave no orders to remove the box, and that had it not been put on board the Cincinnatus he should have taken it into his own berth for safety. Mr Knowles, on being examined, said he gave no instructions rcspectilig the box. He knew the box was stolen, and gave notice to the police to that effect. His Worship said the weight of evidence with regard to the knowledge of the captain respecting the removal of the box, was in favor of the defendant. The present defendant was not responsible. Judgment accordingly. Mr Bathgate gave notice of appeal.