RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3089, 13 January 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day.

(Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) CIVIL CASES. Morton v. Walter.—Ll 15s 6d, balance of Defendant admitted the amount due; but said he objected to the way plaintiff loft his service. It appeared that plaintiff left defendant’s service on the 26th December without a moment’s notice, saying he (plaintiff) had got a better offer, and would lea"e.—His Worship said it was useless to proceed any further in the matter, that the plaintiff had behaved very badly to the defendant, and if the law bad allowed him, he would have punished him for such conduct; but, plaintiff having deducted the amount of one week’s wage, in lieu of notice in the particulars "f demand, he would only give judgment for the amount claimed, without costs.

Walter v. Morton, L 8 14s, This was a claim against the defendant for loss and inconvenience arising out of the defendant s leaving plaintiff’s service without notice. Prom the evidenceof the plaintiff it appeared, that on the 26th December the defendant was cook in his employ) that without giving any no ice whatever he left his service. In consequence, as proper cooking cuu d not be done, the plaintiff was obliged to refuse accommodation to some families who wished to stay at the Occidental, that the boarders and the family were seriously inconvenienced, as tliey could be supplied only with cold meat at meals, and that ifc was necessary to engage a temporary cook until a competent man was obtained. Plaintiff accordingly engaged a carpenter, named Hopcroft. The inconvenience was the greater as it was at a very busy season of the ye ir, and Hopcroft had to be withdrawn from making preparations at the booth at the Caledonian Society’s ground to take defendant’s place. The amount of loss was very difficult to estimate. A part of it, 9s, was due for advertising, and the remainder was much less than the actual loss sustainei. His object was not so much to be reimbursed the pecuniary loss incurred, for whatever was recovered he should certainly band over to one of the benevolent institutions. He merely wished to establish the right of employers to have engagements fulfilled by their servants.— Thomas Fraser, waiter at the Occidental, said the defendant, on the 26th December, went up to him, and desired to see Mr Walter, who was not in. Going down into the kitchen, he found defendant just about leaving. He confirmed the evidence of ftjr Walter, excepting that he was not aware of families having been refused ; but that might have been done unknown to him.—Tide defendant said he only did, as many another

one would have done. He wished Mr Walter to engage a corapeteur. co> k whom he recommended in his place. —ln reply to the plaintiff, the defendant said the man lie wished plan; iff to ongige was a fresh arrival, but he was a competent cook. — His Worship observe.! that many servants claimed the protection of the Court against their employees, but justice should bi dene on both sides. He considered the conduct of the defendant infamous. He estimated the plaintiff was entitled to LG ss. Judgment was given for that amount accordingly, with costs. He hoped that the result of the action would prove a warning to servants not to behave in so disgraceful a manner to their employers in future. Hay ' r . George Frask.— L2 Os for clothing supplied. Judgment for the plaintiff by default for the amount with costs. Hodson v. Frask. —L3 for a saddle. Judgment by default for the plaintiff for the amount with costs.

Asher v. Simpson.—'Ll4 4s. Mr Harris for the plaintiff, Mr W, W. Wilson for defendant. Mr Wilson asked an adjournment to give opportunity for the attendance of Mr Moore as a witness, who would not be in Dunedin until the afternoon. He had been in Court on Friday, but was obliged to leave i town to-day. Mr Harris objected, as the cast had been already adjourned three times It was ultimately agreed that the case should be gone into, am), if necessary, adjourne 1 for Mr Moore’s evidence. The action was brought to recover the value of a saddle, bridle, whip, and a pair of girths. From Mr Harris’s statement, it appeared that on the Ist January, 18li9, the p amtiff and defendant entered into partnership, as butcher.', for a period of three years ; and that a statement of stuck and an inventory of plant and materials was made, in which the sadddle and trappings in question were included. During the carret cy of the partnership, Mr Simpson filed a declaration of insolvency, so far as his private affairs were concerned, and in the schedule attached made no mention whatever of the saddle he now claimed as an asset. It was therefore presumed that it formed part of the partnership plant, although Mr impson now claimed it as his private property. In support of the claim, Mr Asher was examined. He detailed the particulars of the partnership arrangement, and asserted positively the saddle and trapings were included in the inventory. The saddle was one that had been in use for some yea's, but was not allowed to be in common work. It was usually ridden on by Mr Simpson. When the dissolution of the partnership took place, he paid Mr Simpson L 644 as his share of the assets, and the saddle, bridle, and trappings were included in the valuation —Mr Simpson was called, and denied there being any inventory whatever of the stick and utensils. In the schedule he attached to his petition of insolvency He did nob specify each item, but gave a return of his assets in a single sum. On the final settlement of the partnership accounts, a difference took place about the value of the saddle, Mr Asher saying it was too bad to value it at ten ptmucla, for it Was an old saddle Mr Moore, who was present, said it would lie better that each should take a saddle and make it private property, and it was done. —Louis Fort, in the employ of Mr Asher, had been with him seven month*. He sent over the saddle to Mr Simpson, at his request, when he left the business. He thought it was his own property, as he generally used it. It was not used for general purposes, and on one occasion, in erder to save it, a saddle was borrowed from the Criterion stables for a young man to drive stock with.—The case was adjourned to Wednesday for Mr Moore’s evidence. :S. H. Fish junr. v. Pennycut.—Lls 17s lOd for good supplied. Judgmeut by default for the plaintiff for the amount, with costs. Steven v Davison,—lbs, the value of a pup. The plaintiff is providers of the steamer Wallabi, and, having sold the pup to defendant, had been put off from tin e to time, until he found it necessary to take out a summons. The same day it was issued and served, defendant paid the amount to one of the Harbor Company’s employes, but without cost of summons. Haintiff refused to receive it in consequence. Judgment for the plaintiff for the amount, with costs, The Court adjourned to Wednesday morning.