RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4192, 3 August 1876, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

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

Judgment was given, by default, for plaintiffs in the f-.llowing cases, with costs : A*hcr v. King, cla<m L 23 17s; Godfrey and (*reen v. Blackmann, L2 5s 6d: Taieri v Bethune, L 27 6s 4d.

Macdonald v. Worsp.—His Worship gave judgment heroin as follows :—" This is an action against the master of the steamship Taupo by a seaman to recover (1) LlOfor wrongful dismissal, and (2) LlO for an alleged assault. The plaintiff was a seaman on board the Taupo. By the articles of agreement it is provided, «The master to have the liberty t> discharge each or any of the crew on giving twenty four hours' notice. The port of discharge to be at the master's option." The articles determined by operation of law on June 30, and as there was to be a reduction of wages, the plaintiff and ethers had arranged to leave the service, and the defendant promised to take those of the crew who would not re-engage to uny port they desired. At the port of Kelson, on the evening of Saturday, 24th June, the conduct of the crew generally does not appear to have been satisfactory. This led the master to address some words to the crew, but he said nothing specially to the plaintiff. The defendant says he told the crew at the forecastle door, at Nelson, on the Saturday night, that as they had refused to work they would have to leave the first opportunity. The plaintiff denies this statement, and says tat the defendant said at the forecastle door to the men generally that it was a shame treating him as they did, as it was keeping him from getting *g°? d night's rest at the Manukau Whichever of these conflicting statements is to be believed, it is clear that there was no specific notice given to the plaintiff personally that his engagement was to be determined at Taranaki on the Monday following. If the master desired to exercise his power of discharge it was his duty to give notice m distinct and unmistakeable terms, and in a reasonable manner. The burden of proof lies on him to prove such notice. The defendant has failed to prove that he gave any notice to the plaintiff that he would discharge him at Taranaki. Wh«n the vessel was off Taranaki the defendant informed the plaintiff he had no more use for his services, and required him to leave and go on shore. This he refused to do, whereupon the defendant hoisted the police flag, and on the police boat coming alongside the defendant offered the plaintiff his wages for the month of June. The plaintiff refused to take his wages, when the defendant said he would hand the money to the police officer. The plaintiff then took his wages and went to the forecastle. The defendant then came to him, and took him by the shoulder and walked him to the gangway against his will, and put him into the police boat, by which he was landed at Taranaki. He got no employment there, and was detained at Taranaki till the return of the Taupo from the North, when he took a passage in that vessel to Port Chalmers, for which he paid 1,5. lam of opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for dismissal without notice. I assess the damages under this count at 40s. lam further of opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages under the count for assault. It has been contended for the defendant that the master of a ship has power to order a 6ailor out of his ship at any time, leaving him his remedy at law, and to enforce sich order, provided that he do so without unnecessary violence. This would be a dangerous and arbitrary power to be vested in any person, and is, in my opinion, totally opposed to the spirit of the law. Wherever a man has a right to be and remain lawfully, he cannot be ejected by force. If anyone does eject him forcibly and against his will, he is guilty of assault. This was held in the case of Donaldson v Will ams (1 Cr. and M. 345), where a servant was improperly compelled to leave his master's premises. In the present case, the force used was not great, but the whole surrounding circumstances were, in my opinion, harsh and arbitrary. I asßess the damages at L 6. Judgment will be for the plaintiff for the total sum on both counts of LB, with costs."

William Owens v. George Stevens.—Claim, L 4 13s 3d for cartage. Mr Bathgate appeared for plaintiff, Mr Finn for defendant. Judgment was given for plaintiff for L 3 17s 6d. Thomas Chalmers v. Montague Dodd. Claim, Lls on a bill of exchange. Judgment was given for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs.

Charles Miller v. James Dickenson, carpenter.—Claim L 33, money lent.—(Mr F. R. Chapman appeared for plaintiff.—A deal of contradictory evidence was given. Plaintiff deposed that he lent the money to defendant in the Empire Hotel, on April 5, and Robert Bolton, barinan at the time, stated that he witnessed the money being lent. Defendant, on the other hand, denied that he had received the money, and hinted that Bolton had been paid to give his evidence. In several parts of his evidence defendant flatly contradicted himself. Judgment was given for plaintiff for full amount.