RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 2848, 5 April 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Yesterday, (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Cases. Massey (Town Clerk) v. C. Armstrong.— Mr James Smith for the Corporation. The plaintiff sought to recover from the defendant a certain sum due for kerbing the footpath abutting on the property. The case was withdrawn, the notice not being produced. Same v. Daniel Hughes.—Ls Is Gd. There was some dispute about a crossing, and the defendant having tendered L2 2s as the amount due, it was accepted. Judgment accordingly. Same v. Thomas Smith.—This case was adjourned. AFFILIATION. Anderson v. Erow.—Mr Stout for the com plainant. This was an application for an order to compel the defendant to contribute to the support of an illegitimate child, of which he is the father. He was ordered to pay 10s a week. BREACH OF THE LICENSING ORDINANCE. Lamb (Provincial Revenue Officer) v. Mary Keys, - The defendant was charged with a breach of the Licensing Ordinance, by selling a bottle of porter not properly labelled and capsuled, and sundry glasses of ale to certain sailors. The case was proved, and the defendant was lined L 8 11s and costs, forming together a penalty of LlO.

This Day.

(Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Shaw v, 'Macdonald.—This was a case which lias b en already heard, and application was made for costs on an application for rehearing. Mr Cook stated the premises had been given up, but the hearthstone had boon removed and the doors unhinged. Mr St mt, for the plaintiff said his Worship had already ruled that he had no power to give costs when a re-hearing was net granted. His Worship said he had no power under the Act to grant costs. Sidey v. Munro.— L 26 13s 6d, price of a horse sold to defendant. Judgment by default for plaintiff. O‘Neill v. W. Shaaley.—Lß3 6s 2d for | goods supplied. Judgment by default with costs. .Sinclair v. M‘Gregor.—L4B for wrongful dismissal from service of defendant as shepherd. Mr Stout for plaintiff, and Mr Cook for defendant. G. Sinclair, shepherd, said he entered defendant’s employment in May, 1870. He was paid the first year at the rate of LI per week. He was to get L4B, and defendant was to supplement it up to Ls2if he pleased him. He received LIS in cash and stores the first year. A few days after the termination of the first year he entered into a fresh engagement, and remained in his employment some time. He left defendant in January, being discharged by him. After his dismissal he went into the hut where he usually dwelt, and where a number of friends were playing at cards and drinking beer. Defendant was there, and said there should be no more beer served as long as plaintiff was there, alleging that he heard plaintiff was about to split on him for selling Leer. On the following morning be saw Mr M‘Gregor, and asked him for a settlement up, when defendant threw him a 1.10 note, which he refused; and plaintiff' left. Ho subsequently saw plaintiff again, and offered to continue in his service. Defendant offered him Llo, then L 25, and at last offered to toss him L4O, or “sudden death,” which meant nothing.—(Laughter). Witness refused to throw away his chance of a year’s salary on the turn of half-a-crowu. He had sold a cow to a Mr Reid; he had previously bought it himself, and told Mr M‘Gregor that he had bought it. As regarded a silver watch, Mr M‘Gregor had lent him a silver watch which had been bought in town, and told him to keep it and see how he like 1 it. Plaintiff took the watch and was never asked for it, and considering it worth L 4 he retained it the same as other gooffs on account of the balance of 1.4 which he held to be due to him as bringing his salary up to Ls2.—Mr M‘Gregor, defendant, in evidence, said be made no distinct arrangement with plaintiff’ beyond that he agreed to pay him at the rate of L 36 per annum or L 3 per month, but he did not fix any particular time as to agreement. The watch he thought was worth LlO, and he only gave plaintiff the loan of it. In reply to Mr Stout witness said he had made an entry in his book that he had engaged plaintiff' at Loti per annum, and also an entry that the watch was worth L 7. He had not seen the cow plaintiff sold to Mr Reid of Mosgiel, nor did lie know it was his beyond being told so by his son.—His Worship said defendant evidently managed things in a very loose way, and as to the matter of the cow he eould not prove whether it was bis or not. As to the point of hiring, plaintiff having entered upon his second year, it was clearly a wrongful dismissal, and the whole transaction was of the most singular nature. It was certainly a queer thing to find a master offering to toss a servant whether ha would take so much or nothing in lieu of what he owed. He gave judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of L2O and costs.