RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3180, 30 April 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tma Day. (Before A. t C. Strode, |Esq., E.M.)

Cooper v. Ready.—Claim for LI 11s; for rent of cottage and cash lent. Defendant said he admitted owing plaintiff LI 3s. Plaintiff said he would take that amount. Judgment, by consent, for LI 3s, together with costs. Defen!ant asked for time to pay. Defendant to pay the debt and costs in 21 days. In the following cases, judgment went by default Christie v. Tubmau.—L7 ; on account for building a cottage at Saddle Hill. M‘Lean v. Lees.—Ll2 la 2d; balance of

• rocery goods. Gilchrist v. White —lss 6d ; or paint supplied. Now Zealand Distillery 'orapany v. Ceo Clark.—Ll2 ss; amount of i dishonored promisory note. Greeuford v. Murphy.—Fraud summons. In this case the original debt was 3s, and now it had, with costs, amounted to El 2s 6d, Order made that the defendant pay onehalf of the debt and costs on Monday next md the balance to be paid fourteen day's’ from that day. Rushton v. M‘Master. —Claim for El2 7s, f or work and labor done. —Mr E. Cook for plaintiff, and Mr Harris for defendant. —Mr Harris stated that the defendant had a setoff, but had not been able to serve notice of it, through not knowing where to tind the plaintiff, although he had used every diligence.—His Worship said great inconvenience arose in such cases through persons taking out summonses neglecting to leave their addresses. After some argument the case was proceeded with. —Mr Harris admitted owing a balance of E7 2, but claimed as a set-off L 8 1 Os, the price of a horse. The difference between the claim of Ll2 7s, and the amount LU 12s, admitted as due, less L 4 Kh paid, arose through a difference in the sale of wages alleged, to bo agreed upon. The plaintiff said he was engaged by defendant to work his horses at 16s a-week until harvest, when he was to have 20s, but, being employed as a tilter, defendant promised to give him a pound a-week extra, as plaintiff was making a good job of it. Tilting was the harvest work in the field, and generally allotted to the best man. He agreed to take a horse in lieu of wages, which he rode six weeks, and then lent it to Angus M Caul, lu consequence of some disagreement, M‘Master went and forcibly took away the horse out of M‘Caul’s paddock. He might have been absent five or six days during his engagement with M‘Master, but never without his leave, Plaintiff was seventeen years oi age. Several witnesses were called who confirmed the plaintiff s statement respecting the horse. The defendant said in his evidence that he engaged plaintiff at 16s a week, and raised them to 20s. Plaintiff went away twice during harvest, without leave, ahd in consequence most of the men were standing idle. He never agreed to give plaintiff more than 20s a week, or to give any extra wages as claimed. Witnesses were called in support of these statements. His Worship considered from the evidence that the wages agreed upon were 10s and 20s a week. Judgment for the defendant, on payment of difference between L 7 2s and L 8 10s ; plaintiff to have the horse.