RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3446, 9 March 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Monday, March 9. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.) Drunkenness John Kane, James Ross, and Samuel Bell, for being drunk on Saturday night, were each fined 5s ; in default, 48 •lours’ imprisonment; John Sutherland, an *d offender, not appearing, 20s or three days’. There was a further charge against the last-mentioned prisoner of assaulting /'onstable Dunnett while in the execution of his duty, but his Worship intimated that he was not inclined to proceed with this, the more serious charge,in the prisoner’s absence. The law was bound to protect its officers, and a warrant was therefore issued for prisoner’s apprehension. CIVIL CASES. M‘Neill v. Forrest.—Claim L2 10s, for hire of a floor-dog The case was dismissed Makeham v. Fenwick.—Claim c2 ss, for work and labor done. Judgment for the amount claimed with costs. ‘owers v. .Wills.—Claim L4O, for breach of contract, and L 9 10s for moneys paid by plaintiff for defendant, at his request, for the use of two horses and a buggy.—A point raised by Mr Johnston, that defendant should have included his wife and child as co-partners having been disposed of, his Worship thinking that the contract had been made only by Towers on behalf of himself and the other parties concerned, Mr Johnston pleaded not indebted. The ■ Jaintiff alleged that iu consideration of the plaintiff and his wife, Annie Towers, and Rosa Towers, bis daughter, entering into the service of the defendant, and serving him for three mouths in the capacity of comedians, at the wages of 1 8 per week, the defendant promised to retain plaintiff, his wife, and child, and to pay their board and lodgings and travelling expenses during the engagement ; and that although plaintiff continued in the said service for three weeks and was willing to continue, yet defendant dismissed, him, his wife, and child, and refused to retain them for the three months„to p aintiff’s loss and damage of L4o.—Mr M‘Kcay, in stating the case, said that the agreement was originally made on the 18th November last wu-h Mr Bur ford, a theatrical manager, on the one side, and plaintiff on the other. Towers was to play, act, and perform for three months, as a comedian, Mrs Towers as “ old woman,” and Miss Rosa to play with them, at a joint salary of L 8 per week, all expenses to be paid, and one-half clear benefit given. Some time afterwards defendant took the management, and the agreements previously made wi hj Mr Burford were continued by him. The original agreement between plaintiff and Burford being lost a fresh one (almost identical) was drawn up and signed by the parties.— Frank Towers, comedian : I know Mr Wills. The original contract, which was with Mr Burford, was in writing, and was for three months. Host the contract, and although I have diligently searched for it, have been unable to find it. I made the contract produced with Mr Wills. By Mr Johnston; I last saw the contract on the 25th January last, in Invercargill. The second contract was made with Wills there. Burford has a facsimile of the contract, stamped and wit-ne-aed. 1 have not subpoenaed him'to produce that copy.—Mr Johnston maiiitainrd that tho point raised must be fatal to the case. If Burford had the original document, and had not been subpoenaed to produce it, then the case should fall through.—Mr JJ‘ K eay was willing to see if he could get the document, if a reasonable adjournment was allowed.—The case was adjourned for a week, so that plaintiff might correspond with Burford, with a view of getting the original agreement.