RESIDENT MAGISTRATES, COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2633, 26 July 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES, COURT.

This Day, (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Cases. , ’ M‘Gaw v. Anderson. —L 3 10s, for a coat supplied. Judgment by default for the amount claimed, with costs. White v. Pavolitch. —LI, for money lent. Mr Harris for the defendant. The debt was admitted, but a set-off avos set up for board and lodging. . Bird v. Sullivan.—Ll 2a Cd. Judgment by default for the plaintiff. Moss v. 'Whitworth.- —L 3 10s, balance of account for groceries. Judgment by clefault for the plaintiff. .% Gray v. Yates.—Ll' 3s Gil; for goods supplied; Judgment by default for the pi a inti ff.

Same v. J. Mills and W. Darling. —For freight and insurance on goods to the amount LS 19s 7d. The plaintiff elected to be nonsuited.

Hornby'v. Pcarcc. —The defendant was brought up to-state why a judgment of the Court for L 9 10s was not paid. The claim was for rent, and the defendant stated that until the'oomplction of the-first section of the Glutha Railway, he would not be iu ai position to pay the debt. Ordered to pay. one-half the Amount in fourteen days and the remainder in fourteen days afterwards, or to be imprisoned -two months. S. LeAvis v. Bennett and Wedderspoon.— L 7 2s 6d. —A claim for overtime, between April 4 to June 5, 1871. Mr .Stout for the' plaintiff ; -Mr Stewart for the defendant. From the evidence it appeared that ,thb plaintiff engaged to work at L2 us a week. After working a short time, he entered into an : agreement to commence to work oud Jiour earlier on receiving an extra 5a a week. As work increased, the plaintiff had; to rdtiirn and work after tea. The defendant Wedderspoon said it was a rule of the yard that the men should be paid for holidays and early leaving on Saturdays, and that iu consequence no overtime should be allowed for occasionally staying beyond the recognised hours of work. The men worked from eight o’clock to live, with the exception of one hour to dinner. The plaintiff two or three times worked up to 12 o’clock, and on one occasion ho Avas at work at 4 o’clock a.m. The evidence of the defendant Bennett concerning the arrangements regarding time Avas, that if carpenters were off an hour it Avas de-. ducted, or if an hour Avere worked extra they were paid. That did not apply to the men regularly employed iu the yard. The plaintiff had been off work several times, for which no deduction Avas made. About the Ist July defendant told him that he could Hot employ him for two or three weeks, until

a fresh supply of timber was C. Groves confirmed jmcl said j that he paid him Lqflys&au nw|lea and f that plaintiff said th£' His Worship consideredHhb clspn aj|B many; similar to it arose from the of ap; establishment not being madoknown to the employes. He 'considered if most unreasonable that a man should be required, after doing a fair day’s work, to work from , six at night to midnight. If there was anything limning in the defendant’s mind that there should- be compensation for non-payment of overtime, it should have been stated by notice the yard. Judgment for the plaintiff, L 7 2s 6d, with costs.

The Court adjourned to ten o’clock tomorrow.