RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3356, 21 November 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

* Friday, November 21. (Before I. N. Watt, Esq., R.M.) Bellington v. LimLay.—Claim LID, gratuity due to plaintiff as apprentice to defendant at the expiration of his term of service. Mr Stout appeared for plaintiff, Mr Smith for defendant.—Defendant, who is captain of the ship Rokeby Hall, pleaded unsatisfactory conduct on the part of plain-, tiff, and also non-liability-referring plaintiff to the owners of the vessel, who are a linn at Liverpool. It appeared from the evidence that there was an endorsement of the agreement as to the LIU 01 the margin of the plaintiffs indentures ; but this was not entered on the ship’s articles as ordered by the 14ith section of the Act. His Worship gave judgunnt for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costa, considering that defendant’s offering to take plaintiff back and pay him wages as an ordinary seaman was sufficient proof of plaintiff having performed his duty in a satisfactory manner. —Mr b'mith gave notice of appeal. Brogdtm and Sons v. Carter. —In this case his Worship gave judgment, which also applied to the other cases brought by the same plaintiffs, to the effect that counsel for the defence had raised three points, viz ; (1) That the promissory notes were not properly cancelled ; (2) That not being properly cancelled, they could not be adduced in evidence ; (3) That they were not properly st imped and cancelled hefori presentation. He should decide against the first and second points, as it did not appear necessary that the individual himself should stamp and cancel the notes ; bub the third point -that they were not properly stamped and cancelfd before presentation —was fatal, as the presentation took place on the issuing of the summons.—Mr Smith said he would accept a nonsuit —’vlr Sto it asked for costs in the principal case, and 10s a day expenses for the defend,nits in the other cases, which were granted, plaintiffs being noiisnite.il. Burt v. Rrockley.—Claim, L 37 6s lid, for goods supplied Mr Stewart appeared for plaintiff, Mr F. R. Chapman for defendant.— Alexander Burt, plaintiff, seut a telegram in July last to defendant, who lives at Grey mouth, stating that he could supply him with “ a ton of galvanised iron, slightly damaged, of 20, 22, aud 24 gauge, at 1.36.” Defendant telegraphed hack “ send assorted iro i, as per telegram, at L 35 ” The iron was shipped, and defendant wrote saying that on seeing it lie cal ed a survey, ; he result of which was that the iron was found to be as badly damaged as if it had been live weeks in salt water ; that the size did not suit him, part of it being of 18 gauge; aud that he would not give more than LIS or LIS per ton for such iron. Also that he gave the order to Mr Frank Rutter, who represented himself as travelling for witness and for Messrs Haworth and Co, These statements witness denied, saying that he never bad iron of a heavier gauge than 20 in his shop, and that he knew nothing of Mr Rutter. —Crossexamined : Could not say whether the lot of iron wasganged before being scut todefendant, but would dependou the gauge being according to the invoice from the Home merchant.—Edward Mel oy, in plaintiff's employ, produced a book showing the gauge of the iron to be from 24 to 20. —John Anderson, also in plaintiff’s employ, said that the iron was a little damaged iu appearance, hut not enough to interfere with its working up. Never knew heavier iron than 20 gauge to be iu plaintiff’s shop.—Thomas Burt, partner with plaintiff, gave similar evidence. — John M‘Neil, attorney aud manager f r Briscoe and Co,, said that iron of the quality in question would be worth about L4B or L 52 per ton if not damaged.—The evidence for the defence, as taken at Greymoutb, was read. That of defendant was as quoted above, aud that of a number of other persons who at his request had examined tht iron was generally to the effect that they had gauged it, but nob with a proper gauge—only by feeling it.—Judgment reserved T. Dermer v. Francis Maule,—Claim, Ll4 5s lid, for groceries supplied aud interest on the amount. Judgment for plaintiff by default for LII 4s 31, his Worship saying plaint ff was not entitled to interest, M'Leod v. Nicoll.—Claim Ll4 Is 9d, for wages said to be due up to November 3, and LlB for loss sustained hy plaintiff through defendant s breach ofagreement of September 18. His Worship gave judgment in this case as follows : Firstly.—With respect to the nonsuit point urged on behalf of the defendant, I am of opinion that the plaint is in the proper form, inasmuch as wages had accrued to the plaintiff anl become vested in him; and therefore, I think, he is entitled to sue both for the wages due and accrued, as well as for wrongful dismissal or breach of contiact. Taylor v. Laird, 1 H. and N., 266. Secondly.—l think tlm contract of 18th September w'as mutually modified on or about the 16th October last—the modification to take place upon the arrival of the plaintiff iu Dunedin, namely, on the 20th October. The alteration of the contract agreed upon appears to have been the reading of the word “ Dunedin” in the place of the word “Hampden.” That is, the plaintiff was to manage and conduct a bianeh business iu Dunedin, instead of iu Hampden. But the defendant, instead of providing him with promises wherein to do so, dismisses him on the 20th October, without the month’s notice required by the agreement. The measure of the damages is not, as iu the case of a domestic servant, a mouth’s wages, but the loss, owing to the want of notice, sustained by the plaintiff. The evidence on this point helps me but little, but the defendant says, though business was slack, he could have employed, and that he offered to employ plaintiff in his own simp. This the plaintiff denies, and says that he offered so to work, and that the defendant refused to employ him. Judgment for the plaintiff for balance of wages to 2Uth October, the money paid into Court, LI 15s 9d, and Li) damages, being two weeks’ wages in lieu of the month’s notice.