RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 2829, 13 March 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before I. N. Watt, Esq., R.M.) Civil Oases. Geddes v. Davis. —LI for goods sold and delivered. Judgment for the plaintiff for the amount with costs. Felstead v. Hosebottom.—Lß, for wrongful dismissal. M • Edward Cook for the plaintiff, Mr Stewart for the (defendant. The plaintiff, in hia evidence, said that on the 16th of February he engaged with the defendant to take charge of the Champion cucter, as master, at L 8 a month, to go to the wreck of the Ahuriri with two divers and apparatus and three men. They were also to tow a large boat—the life-boat of the Ahuriri, Rations were to be found. He went on board the cutter on Friday night, but the wind being contrary the crew did not go on board ; on Sunday, however, they went down to Waikouaiti, and landed to examine the bar. On the following Tuesday the wind blew heavily from the N. E.. and the sea was so rough that it would not have been safe to cross the bar. The vessel dragged her anchor, and they rau back to Carey’s Bay. They lay there until Friday, when defendant went alongside and asked why they had not proceeded. On being told they were remaining there for safety, he said he would dispense with their services, and took the apparatus on board the Result. He inquired if any of the men wouid go in the Result but they refused as they bad been dismissed. On application for wages defendant refused to pay him In cross examination the plaintiff admitted having been drinking on the Friday and Saturday after the engagement, but denied being incapable of performing his duties or delaying going onward to the wreck of the vessel, excepting through stress of weather. The mate, Brannigan, said that while in Carey’s Bay, a vessel broke from her moorings and placed the cutter in danger, so that they were obliged to slip the cable". Other evidence was given to the same effect. For the defence it was con tended that due diligence was not used by the plaintiff in proceeding to the wreck, and the weather was so calm that there was no danger in doing so. The deiendant denied discharging the men, and said that they refused to work. He merely engaged the Result to take his men and diving apparatus. The plaintiff and crew would have gone as passengers George Lloyd was examined, and a waterman who took the defendant off to the Champion. The waterman said that the plaintiff refused to proceed when asked to do so by the defendant, and Lloyd said they might have gone out any day between Friday and Tuesday. Judgment for the defendant. Harvey v. Violetta Ridley.—Ll9 12s 6d, for services rendered, and travelling expenses in examination of hooks, &c. Mr Edward Cook for the plaintiff. Judgment for the plaintiff by default for the amount with costs.