DISTRICT COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3596, 1 September 1874, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

Monday, August 31. (Before His Honor Mr Judge Bathgate ) John Wars v. William Fowler.— Plaintiff, an engine-driver, of Palmers'.on, sought to recover from defendant, a settler at the same place, the sum of JLIB2 9a 2d as balance of wages due. For the defence, the rates of wages and periods of service were denied. Defendant admitted service to the extent of L 157 7s 6d by plaintiff. Defendant bad paid plaintiff L.IOB 5s 6d, and paid what ho considered still dne to defendant (Ll9 17s 3J),with costs, into Court. The following gentlemen were sworn as a jury ; -Benjamin Bayley, John Allen, John Aikman, and William Asher. Mr Stout admitted that the grounds of defence were insufficiently stated. 'There was not sufficient particularity, and they, could not anticipate what the defence would be. After Mr Barton had been heard in reply, his Honor overruled the objection. Mr Stout then addressed the jury, s'ating that plaintiff had worked for defendant, which was admitted ; the only question f*r th<mi to settle being the amount to which he was entitled. The first part of the time he acted as engine-driver, then looking after the engine, and he also worked on defendant’s farm. Plaintiff had been, as they would see from the bill of particulars, working for defendant for the past three years ; but he had been unable te come to a settlement, defendant always putting him off, and he had been compelled to go to Court. Plaintiff would prove the time be had been at work, and by his own statement and that of others that the rate of wages charged was the usual rate, and he was therefore entitled to the amount claimed. Plaintiff gives credit for L7l 7s 6d, while defendant savs he paid him no less a sum than L 137 14s 3, the disputed amount being L 66 fis 9d. There was also a dispute as to the wages, plaintiff asserting that the total amount was L2 : '3 16s, while defendant said it was only Lls/ 7s 6d for the three years’ work. Evidence was then given by plaintiff, Duncan M'Laren, Henry VVathey, and James Geddes. The defence was that plaintiff was employed in 1872 by defendant, for a threshing machine, at L2—the then current rate ol wages. That he afterwards got the worse for liquor, and was discharged, but subsequently tihen on again. ’lt was further urged that the money paid into Court was the balance due to him. After Mr Button had addressed the jury they returned a verdict for plaintiff for i.4 Is Id. in addition to the amount paid into Court. Costs were allowed.

Tuesday, September 1. John Thomas Gynne v, Wm.. Oram Ball.— This was a claim for L2'o, and Mr Stout, who appeared for plaintiff, said that Mr Ball was sued in his representative capacity as manager of the Shag Valley P. 0. Quartz Minina Company, and as such was prepared to admit that the debt was correct—fiis Honor: Has be admitted it? Mr Bad said he was willing to allow jml a. ment to be given by confession.—Judgment was given for plaintiff, with professional costs. Henry Smith Fish, junr., v. John Shaw Gray and Thomas Di*ummond.— This was an action between plaintiff and defendants, merchants, trading under the name of Gray and Drummond, for the recovery of L! 56 17s 9d, balance of amount due for work and labor done. The original claim was for L 3/6 17s I'd, and p'aiudff had received payment to the extent of L 220, leaving a difference of the amount sued for. The defence filed was that the work and labor set forth m the particulars was not done for defendants, or at their request.— Plaintiff s case was that Messrs Wood and Steinau had contracted for the erection of Mr Dunning's buildings in the Cutting, and also for Thomson, Strang, and Co.’s building adjoining. Plaintiff sent in a tender for painting the work under both contracts. These contracts were accepted, the price for the first contract (Dunning’s) being L 145, and for the other L 62 10s. This was for specified work. Other work was to be ch rged for be measurement. Messrs V\ ood and Mteinau afterwards finding that they were unable to comp'ete the contracts, • stopped payment, and defendants were appomted assignees. At this time plaintiff's | contracts were nearly completed. A meet- | ing of creditors was held and Gray and | Drummond appointed to take an assignment | of the contracts, and it was arranged that they should pay the principal creditors—those who supplied the material, at the rate of 10s in the pound, and the sub-contractors —situated in the position of Mr Fish—should be paid in full. The arrangement was reduced to a deed, by which Messrs Wood and Steiuau assigned the buihjing contract to Messrs Gray and Drummond in consideration of th-ir paying one class of creditors a composition of 10a in the pound, and others standing in the category of plaintiff, supplymg principally labor, their claims in full. Plaintiff was no party to the deed, and a mere approximate of the amount due to him was set down as L7O, while it was clearly shown that he was then entitled to LIOO. Plaintiff then placed himself in communication with defendants, but could get no satisfactory settlement, the latter refusing to submit the matter to arbitration. After hearing evidence on both sides, his Honor reserved judgment The Court then adjourned till Friday. K ESI DENT. MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Tuesday, September 1. (Before A. Mercer, Esq., and R. H. Learv Esq., J.P.’s;) PRUNKENNESS.-John Jones and James held were each fined ss, with the option of twenty-four hours’ imprisonment; John Bussell. for being drunk whilst in charge of a horse and Robert Muir, failing to appear when called on, had bis bail (40s) forfeited. James Taylor, an immigrant by the Otago, was discharged with a caution.