RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2737, 24 November 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tms Day. (Before A. (J. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Casks. Armstrong v. A. and T. Burt.—Ls4 ss. Mr Stout for the plaintiff; Mr Stewart for the defence. A sum of money was paid into Court in satisfaction of the claim, with the exception of L2l, which with other amounts wore claimed as a set-off. The case was an adjourned and a very complicated one, but appeared to be pretty much as follows :- Armstrong had become indebted to the oefenda ts, and afterwards formed a partnership with one Walker, The two entered into ac nti.ac with defendants to build a house lor them, the cost of which, by agreement with Armstrong, was to go in satisfaction of the debt. After working some time they failed, and the estate passed into the hands of trustees, on whose behalf the plaindff sued to recover the 1-21, which it was alleged Walker knew nothing of, as it was a debt contracted prior to the partnership arrangement being entered into, and that consequently, when Armstrong agreed to treat it as a set-off, it was done in fraud of his partner. The evidence as to the set-off was gone into, A. Burt, on being examined, said that Armstrong was indebted to the firm, and had agreed to “ work out the amount.” He did not know whether Walker was aware of the arrangement. They both, iu an interview witn him,

said they could net complete a con tract entered into for building, and Walker said that Messrs Burt need not trouble iheir heads about their stopping payment, as they would pay themselves. Armstrong agreed with witness that the value of bis work should be net against the account. After the service of the summons, Armstrong said he would allow the set-off of L2l. He expressed himself perfectly satisfied with the amount paid into Court. In cross-examination by Mr Stout, the witness said he was called upon to pay the amount, aud refused to pay more than was due. He was aware that the plaintiffs had agreed to hand over their estate to trustees, but the knowledge did not come to him by authority. Hose, as clerk to the trustees, asked him not to pay money to Armstrong, and he promised not to pay money without his signature. At the first ami only meeting of creditors that he attended, he told the creditors o the agreement of Armstrong and Walker, and Mr Outline, <>f the firm of Guthrie aud Wedderspoon, said he did not consider viesurs Burt creditors He therefore attended no more meetings. Mr Stout, for the plainiiiff, urged that the agreement made by Armstrong with Messrs Burt was not binding on Walker, and that the agreement to allow the set-off by Armstrong was a fraud upon Walker, who, to make it binding upon him, should have been informed of it and also of the payment into Court. He moved for a nonsuit ; but his Worship considered there Nas a case to answer. Armstrong, on examination, said he had not informed Walker of his private debts. He knew he was indebted to Messrs Burt, but was not aware of the amount. There was no agreement, after entering into partnership with Walker, to set off the value of the work against Messrs Burt’s debt. His Worship considered the case an extraordinary one, hut was inclined to think that the evidence was in favor of Walker’s consenting to the agreement with Armstrong. Judgment for the plaintiff for the amount paid into Court, Ll6 3s lid.

Macpherson v. Burt.—Ls, for shooting a valuable cut on Sunday, Nov. 19th. Mr VJ ‘Keay, for the defendant, said his client never authorised anybody to shoot a cat—certainly not the defendant. In reply to a question by tlie Hcnch, the plaintiff said he meant to claim damages for shooting his cat. Mr M ‘Keay considered he was taken by surprise, but pleaded not guilty. R Macpherson, the claimant, said he resided at Green Island, and had a very large black cat, which would kill a rat, and was a match for a flog. On Sunday afternoon he saw Mr Burt come to the end of his pigeon box, and present his gun and shoot the oat on another man’s premises. Plaintiff went up to him and asked him—“ Why did you shoot my cat,” aiid he “ inclined" to give an answer, but ultimately, in no very compli mentary phrtseology, said he would shoot him if he did not behave him elf. lu crossexamination witness said he liked a good cat, but was not inclined to give five pounds for another cat, as he might not get one so good. The cat was not on the pigeon box. He saw the gnn fired, but did not then see the cat. Asdrew M'Croney, residing at Green Island, .heard a gun tired while sitting in his own house. He went out and saw a cat lying dead, but he did not know te whom it belonged. Tho cat had been shot. He would not give live pounds for a cat. The plaintiff had another cat. For the defence) Mr McKeay pleadtd justification, as the cat 1 was caught in the act of watching to eat young pigeons, and the only way of defending them was to destroy her. The defendant, J. Bmt, said on Sunday he was lying down and was informed by bis daughter that a cat was lying on the top shelf of the pigeon-house watching for pigeon?. He shot the cat, and she just jumped down on to a neighbours uremises, where she died. He had lost one pigeon that morning, and frequently lost pigeons. The plaintiff had six more cats, twi old and four young ones. Judgment for thedefendant. Alexander and Tames Burt v. Pollock.— Ll3 5s for wages, Mr McKeay for the plaintiff. Mr Hodgkins'or the defence. From the evidence, J, Burt, he fatherof thetwo boys, said they had been, working as drivers for Mr Pollock from June 12 to August 9th. They were put on b; instruction of Andrew McCrawley, a servait of Mr Pollock, who is working a coal mie* at Green Island. In cons', quenee of the men complaining, he (Burt) took theboysiway, they having been driving for I'ollock, vho was unable to drive in consequence of an accident. Pollock remonstrated, and sale it was he they had to do with, not the men. and he should pay the boys. In eross-examaation by Mr Hodgkins the plaintiff said he had worked for five or six years. He had a“ bend” in the mine and his boys had <ne between them and worked from the 9ti June to August 12. His eldest son was hirtcen years of age. He took him to wok with him at four o’clock in the morninj and with the exception of a spell in the dteruoou, they worked to seven o’clock at ni'ht. During the time claimed for one of tie boys, one was constantly driving while tie other was working. J. Burt, one of the plaotiffs aged 13, said he first wo ked in the nine a year and a half ago to help his father. Mr M‘Crawley went and told him every naming that he was to go and drive for the defendant. Andrew M ‘Crawley being callel said he was contractor with Mr Pollock. He never told the father of the boys tint Pollock instructed him to get the boys b drive. They drove to oblige Mr Pollock and to benefit themselves. lu cross-exaniuation the witness said he had a contr.ct to draw the coal from the mine to the delivery shed at Is 8d per ton. Jv o agreemext was made by which Bollock -was to render my assistance. When Pollock was hurt, one<f the boys commenced deriving along with iim on the tramway. He did not know who employed him to drive. The father had compkined of his (witness) not getting the coala aviy quicker. Ha had never told Burt that Pollock stopped 5s a day for the boy’s wares. For the defence, the defendant Pol ook was examined. He said that M“Craw Icy contracted to draw the coal a» ay from the pit’s mouth to the depot at Is 8d a ton. He vas not to have assistance, and gave no distinctions to M‘Crawley to engage ihe boys. He had an accident, and saw Burt that nigit, but he never asked him to let his boys drve and be would pay them. Three or fourweeks after the accident he was sent for tc tho mine, on account of the men being through having heard that the boy wa to be paid for driving. and they objectid to his having the bend iu the mine as well. He informed them it was not so—}3urt, the father, was present —and all retuned to their work, the boys had their turn in the mine from June 12th to Augus; 9th- During that time .Burt, for hinuttif and boys received 1 L-50 5s 4d wages. Nc application was made *

for payment for this boys. The reason why Burt left was, he was not working himself for a short time, and the boys sent up short weight. On refusing to take the short weight, Burt left, and took his sons with him. There was a balance due to him of two pounds odd. but Burt owed more than seven pounds. He bad never employed the boys. In cross-examination, the defendant said before his accident he seldom drove the horse. The persons benefited were M‘Crawley, Burt, the boys, and all the men working in the mine. B. M'Pherson miner had worked in the mine for about ten months. When the boy was found by the miners to be driving, they objected to his having his “ bendand Burt, senior, said he was not to be paid, and the objection was withdrawn. It was no advantage to Mr Pollock, but it was to Burt an t the miners, as if the coal was not re* mo red it would interfere with the work next diy. Andrew Harris, coal miner, gave similar evidence. Hobert Macpherson said the boys’ driving was advantageous to Burt and alLibe men, through getting the coal ajvSy quicker. His Worship considered the 'evidence was in favor of the defendant. The boys were rmunerated by having been allowed a “bend” in the mine. Judgment for the defendant. (Left sitting.)