RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3334, 27 October 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Monday, October 27. (Before I. N. Watt, Esq., R.M.) rOUCK CASES. Ship Desertion.—James Mahoney and Kob.rt M'Kenna were charged with deserting from the barque India while lying at Rattray street jetty. The ship havin'g sailed and there being no appearance of the Captain to prosecute, the prisoners were discharged. i) unkenness John Ormisten alias James Brown, for this offence was lined 10s, with the option of forty-eight hours imprisonment. CIVIL CASES. In the following cases judgment was given by default, with costs Wallace v. Dime, claim Lls 7s lOd, balance of account. Meeuau v. Biggery, LI 9s 6d, for produce ; same v. M'Gili, LI 14s 2d, do; same v. Meikle, LI 18s 3d. Campb.ll v. Bryon.—Claim 5s for express hire. Judgment was given for plaintiff, 2s lid, with 9s costs. Wright v. Bruce,—LlO, for work and labor done and services rendered by plaintiff to defendant, as master of the ship Bebington, in attending to sheep on the passage from London to here. Mr Mausforcl, who appeared for defendant, said that L 3 had been paid into Court, which was thought sufficient remuneration.—Alfred Wright, a passenger on board the Bebington, was employed by the Captain to look after some sheep on the passage. He tended them for thirteen weeks, from the time of leaving till twelve days before arrival, when he was discharged, and the third mate told to look after them. When he asked the captain for money, he said he could not get any. Witness cleaned out the place once a week. He paid his own pa-sage money, which was LlB. To Mr Mansford : He “ knocked off” on the 12th September, by the captain’s orders. 1 he captain complained of the way in which the sheep were tended a short time before that time. There was no specified time for feeding j the sheep. Some times he fed them at six o’clock, and sometimes at eight. —Mr Mansford said that the defence was simply that plaintiff had habitually neglected hia duty. The master, mate, and officers had frequently complained of the way in which he was tending the sheep, and at last had to take them away from him. The master was entitled to a small gratuity on every sheep landed in Port Chalmers, and the L 3 had been paid into Court as remuneration to plain iff, (Counsel cited A rding v. Pomacks, reported in the 24th Journal Lx. R., to show that if anyone habitually neglected his duty the master could dismiss him; Lilly v. Elwick, 17th 1.R., Q. 8.; Bridgway v. Market Co., page 171). He subm tted that the master was not justified in paying L 3 as remuneration. —Mr Stout admitted that the master could dismiss a servant for negligence; lutby paying L 3 into Court defendant admitted everything in the plaint but the amount. —James Bruce, master of the Bebiogton, said that Wallace came out as a passenger, and during a portion of the passage tended some sheep on board. As far as the Cape he tended them and leaked after them as he liked, notwithstanding the warnings of witness and the i dicers. Plaintiff at one time, getting fright nod of the weather, went to the fori castle and lived with the sailors, during which time ho never in any way looked after the sheep. Witness considered L 3 paid into Court as sufficient remuneration. Plaintiff asked to be engaged. To Mr Stout; Witness got LI4 10s over and above the freight, for bringing the sheep out. He knew nothing about sheep, but thought they should get fed three times a day, because men get three meals. To Mr Mansford: The officers are entitled to a portion of the Ll4 10s, as they looked after the sheep, as plaintiff would not. Robert Moorhouse, chief officer, gave corroborative evidence,—Judgment for plaintiff for Lo and costs. Jago v. Atkinson.—Ll7 10s. balance of account for building a house.—Judgment for L 7 10s and costs. —Mr W. W. Wilson appeared for defendant.