RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3571, 3 August 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Monday, August 3. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.)

Drunkenness.—Edward Bunny was fined ss, with the option of twenty-four hours’ imprisonment ; John Robinson, 2 s, or fourteen days’.

A Stowaway —Chas. O’Brien was charged on the information of J.imes Edie, master of the steamer >amsou, with having, on the Ist inst., at Oamaru, unlawfully travelled from Oamaru to Dunedin without paying the fare, and with intent to avoid payment of the same —Prisoner, who admitted the offence, was fined sb, in addition to the fare (15s) ; ia default three days’ imprisonment, with hard labor

Theft.—Alfred Holloway was charged on the information of Charles Stock, with haviug, on the 31st ult., stolen ane musical instrument, of the value of LI ss.—Prosecutor said that he was a farmer, at present residing in the Crown Hotel. He bought a flute from Mr Begg on Friday last, and put it under bis pillow on the same evening. He did not again see it till it was in the hands of the police.—James Campbell said that prisoner had been boarding with him for nine days, having said that he was sent there by Messrs Craig and Gillies. Witness on making inquiries found the representato bo untrue.—George Latimer, pawnbroker to Messrs Isaacs and Marks, said that pri* soner brought him the flute in quertion, and offered it for sale. Witness gave him 3s for it —Detective Shury deposed to the arrest of prisoner, who, while denying the theft, remarked that “ Honesty is always the best policy.’—Prisoner applied for a remand till nes.t day, which was granted. Pigeon Stealing.—Joseph Scott and John Myall, two young lads, were brought up on remand charged with stealing two pigeons of the value of 7s, the property of Robert Fenwick,—The lads were before the Comt some time ago, and were let off for a month, to give the police an opportunity of judging of their characters.—His Worship, addressing them now, said ; I have been making inquiries of your general behaviour since you were last before me, and am informed that you have been conducting yourselves well; and because you have done so 1 intend to discharge you with this caution, which you will take to heart—the risk you have run. What a sad thing it would be for boys so young to be stamper! with the name of thief ; but if you behave yourselves well you will hear no more about it. Never meddle with things not your own, even though they only be pigeons— for pigeons are prive property and must not be touched. Now you may go, and Lt me never hear anything more about you,—Both lads then left the court.

i'Tfa.IjING Gekse. — William Long and Alex. Gillies were charged, on the information of Patrick Cottar, with stealing two geese of the value of Ll.— Mr Stout, who defended, pleaded not guilty. He thought that if he stated the facts of the case that Jbe Bench might dispense with the evidence. The facts were these, and be believed the prosecutor would state that what he said was true ; The accused were going home on Saturday night, and not having met since they came outheresome years ago got the worse of liquor. One of them had a retriever dog with him which was fond of running after geese It ran after the geese which the accused were charged with stealing and damaging them, they were killed by one of the men and taken into his house. Before anything could be done, the police were communicated with by the prosecutor, the feathers traced to the door, and Sergeant Hanlon denied admittance. '1 he accused, however, called in Mt Cottar, the prosecutor, and acquainted him with the matter. He (Mr stout) could call a large number of witnesses as to character, and handed in a recommendation to one of them from the Lord Provost of Glasgow \ — m j _ . , . ; * & _ !

He believed the prosecutor himself would say that he thought the thing was done more for a lark than anything else.—Prosecutor said that it was not his wish to press the charge, and that he desired to withdraw it. Long called him into the house, said he was sorry for what had occurred, but agreed to pay for the damage done.— The charge was withdrawn. Breach of the Peace.— John M'Laren, a well-known political man, and Thomas Barry, for using threatening behaviour in Stafford street on August 2, with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, were each fined 10s, witji the option of three days’ imprisonment, CIVIL OASES. Collins v. Burns.—Claim, L 4 16s, for wages due.—Judgment was given for defendant with costs. Watson v. Gore.—Plaintiff, a carpenter, sued defendant, a builder, for the difference of wages due between the 7th and 18ih July, at the rate of I3s per day—viz., 11s,—Mr Barton for plaintiff, Mr stout for defendant. —There was a second case of a like nature brought by one Allan against the same defendant.—Mr Barton explained that though through the technicalties of law the cases were separate, they were really one. Though, from the amounts sued for, the

cases seemed trifling, no less a personage than Mr Stout appeared on the one side and himself on the other; and he thought the case was going to be a cause ceh' ra, as it was the first case of its class which had been heard in the country. His Worship was doubtless aware of the great carpenters’ case, when the dispute was only over six shillings ; or, believed, the price of two or three glasses of beer, or, perhaps, a glass of wine. That case had established a precedent, and he hoped the present case in which the two carpenters were concerned would establish such a precedent as would be handed down to posterity. In the month of June the building trado iu Dunedin having become very prosperous, there being great advancement in it, great private individuals like Mr Larnach and others building large palatial residences—(laughter)— owing to the policy of Mr Vogel and his Ministry, the carpenters resolved to be benefited by the prosperity. A carpenter’s society was formed, and owing to the highly prosperous state of things it was determined

not to work under 13s. The masters had previously combined at a meeting on June 27 (and he would have to prove this from the enemy’s camp), not to give more than 12s per day as wages to good hands ; and thus it was that the builders themselves wanted to abate the wages one shilling per day. The struggle commenced in this way: the masters began by combining not to give more than 12s per day, and the men determined by a similar combination that skilled hands should not work for less than 13s per day. The result was either a strife or a lock out, the latter was the more proper name, a it was the masters and not the men who struck. To his (Mr Barton’s) intense surprise the ‘Daily Times’ appeared on the scene on the right side in an article advocat. mg the carpenters to be benefited by the increased prosperity of ihe Colony. The only mistake it made was in stating that the men were seeking for an increase of Is per day, while the masters were really trying to deprive the men of the shilling, ft said that the men, while seeking the increase of one

shilling per day, should not in bad times c me whining to the public, but should save iithe meantime. He (Mr Barton) adopted most heartily what the * Times ’ said on that occasion. Plaintiffs were both office-bearers i'i the Society, were most active and energetic men, and he believed he. would .be able to P'ove that they were first-class tradesmen, and one of them was secretary to the Society. He did not know whether the defence would be that the men were not good workmen, bub he had a shrewd suspicion it would be so, and that • tore would seek to justify the day’s dispute by saying that they were not worth more than 12s-at least he had a little side-wind that such would be the defence set up ; but ha could prove by overwhelming evidence t hat ai uchj w ;• a not the case. -Mr Stout: The whole dispute is what was the agreement.—Mr Barton then detailed at length a conversation which took place between Watts and Adlan with Gere when they went to seek employment after the lock-out. Gore said, “ I will pay 14s, and those to whom I pay 14s are my cheapest hands.” Oa that understanding they went to work, and on pay-day found themselves down for 12s. They refused to work for that sum ; hence the claim.—For the defence it was contended that there was no specified agreement, and that 12s per day was as much as they were worth.—His Worship said that, in fixing the rate of wages in this case, he was not going to make a precedent. Judgment was given for the amount claimed, with costs.