RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4181, 21 July 1876, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Friday, July 21. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., H.M.)

Elias Nicholson v. Duncan Bain.—Claim LB, for wages.—Mr Joyce appeared for plaintiff, who stated that he was engaged as seaman on board the Maid of Otago on January 20 and worked till March 4, when, in consequence of a dispute with the mate, he left the vessel and had his luggage put ashore. He saw the defendant, who is master, some four or five weeks afterwards, but he refused to pay the amount due.—The summons having been effected in an irregular way, viz., on the vessel instead of at the captain’s house, the hearing was adjourned. Slacohtsrino Licbnsb.— George Wilson’s application for a slaughtering license at the North-East Valley was opposed by the police. —His Worship mentioned that the case came up for hearing on July 19, when the presiding magistrate (Mr Mansford) granted the application in the absence of Inspector Mallanl. The magistrate refused to sign the license because it was obtained in the absence of the parties opposing.—Mr A. Bathgate stated that he appeared on the former occasion, and was not aware of the cause of the absence of opposing parties to the application. The application was granted in the usual way, and having been granted, he (the learned counsel) submitted thatit was not com petentto open up the matteragain. The Court had not power, so far as he was aware, to re-hear the matter, and though the Magistrate might have refrained from signing the formal application, still, the application having been granted, the Coart could not open np the matter again.—His Worship said that the matter having been already before the Court and considered he did not see that he could interfere; The Magistrate then sitting might have had good reasonsfor refusing to sign the certificate, bnt those reasons were not before him, and he had no power to inquire, and he did not see that he nad power to re-hear. If applicant carried on his business without a certificate in the terms of the statute he did so at his own peril, but he (bis Worship) could not interfere in the present application.—lnspector Mallard stated that before the original hearing applicant had been served with notice of: opposition. Mr Mansford had distinctly stated that under the circumstances he certainly would not sign the application.—FTin Worship said that he could not interfere in the matter ; and it was decided to adjourn the application till Wednesday, when Mr Mansford would occupy the Bench. Charles M‘Donald v. H. Worap. —Claim L2O—LIO for wrongful dismissal from the s.s. Taupo, of which defendant was master and plaintiff was mariner, and 1.10 -for assault. Mr Barton appeared for plaintiff; Mr Holmes for defendant.—Plaintiff’s case was that he was employed by defendant as seaman, the engagement being terminablesubject to twenty-four hours’ notice. That while lying alongside the Nelson wharf on Sunday, June 25, defendant ordered plaintiff 'to unload, which he declined to do, holding that it was subversive to the rules of service to so work on the Sabbath. Defendant did not say anything till reaching Taranaki next day, when he ordered plaintiff to leave the ship. The latter demurred to being landed in such an open place as Taranaki, and the defendant then sent for the police for the purposes of intimidation. He pushed plaintiff off- the steamer, after paying him his wages in fall to the end of the month.—Mr Homes submitted that the plaintiff must be nonsuited. In Ueu of giving plaintiff twenty-four hours’ notice, defendant had paid him his wages for that time. A master might order a sailor out of a ship at any time, provided he. did so without unnecessary violence. The articles expired by law on June 30, when service was at an end, and a master' might dismiss before that time by paying wages up to the time. —Mr Barton pointed out that plaintiff had been landed in a port where it was impossible he could obtain work. The points raised by the learned counsel might have been tenable bad plaintiff been lauded at Port Chalmers, which was* his home.—His Worship reserved his ‘decision on the law points, saying that he considered the articles regarding the twentyfour hours’ notice improper and one--sided. It was an excessively awkward thing for a sailor to be left at such a place as Taranaki. The defence was that plaintiff had so behaved hiywoftlf at Nelson that defendant had been compelled to give him the necessary notice ef dismissal there. Judgment went for plaintiffs, by default, in the following cases, with costaßurton Bros. v. Alex. M‘Leod, 17s 6d for photog^tphs; Same v. Thos. Parsons, L 3 3s 4d; Same v. Edward Towsey, L2 Is; D, M. Spedding v. T. W. Fyfe, L 23 18s for clocks.