RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4289, 24 November 1876, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, November 23. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.) Guthrie and Larnach v. George Billyeald, was a claim for L2O for breach of agreement. Mr Stout for plaintiffs, and Mr Finn for the defendant. In opening the case, Mr Stout S reduced an agreement bearing date the 7ch October, 1876, whereby the defendant agreed to work for twelve months as a cabinet-carpenter in the plaintiffs’ employ at the rate of 14s a-day of eight hours —after the said date the engagement to be terminable at a month’s ’ notice on either side. Owing to the defendant’s breach of the agreement, the firm were not able to get through LIOO worth of carver’s work. They brought the action not only to recover against the defendant, but also to prevent their skilled servants who had made agreements of a similar character breaking through their agreements.—Andrew Denovau, foreman of the furniture department at Guthrie and Lamach’s, deposed that there were nominally no carvers in Dunedin. The defendant was an excellent workman, and there was plenty of work for him. Witness was not able to complete orders owing to the defendant’s breach of agreement. Witness diet not advertise for a carver, as he knew that he could get one without advertising," if he was out of employment in Dunedin. Witness had sent to Melbourne for one.—Robert Guthrie deposed that he had the general management of the machinery department at Guthrie and Lamach’s establishment. On the 11th inst., the defendant had a row with his mate, and went away with his tools packed up before witness spoke to him about the disturbance. Witness did not tell the defendant to “ clear out.”—Alfred Thomson, chairmaker, deposed that his bench was next the defendant’s at Guthrie and Larnach’s. On the lltb inst., the defendant “had a drop of drink,” and called witness “a sneak,” and other disgusting names. Mr Guthrie then said to the defendant, “ You had better go downstairs, and not make any disturbance here.” The defendant had his tools all packed up before Mr Guthrie spoke to him. Mr Guthrie did not tell him to leave.— For the defence George Billyeald deposed that, W about half-past three on Monday afternoon, the 11th inst., he took a young man with him to look round Guthrie and Larnach’s establishment. Witness went to his bench for some drawings. FI is mate, John Ashton, said to him, “ Look here, George, ” and one word brought on another. Mr Guthrie came down and put his hand on witness’s shoulder and told him to “clear out.” Witness said “I suppose you mean the sack.” Mr Guthrie went away, and witness left with the intention of returning to Melbourne. Witness had no intention of leaving Guthrie and Lamach’s before Mr Guthrie spoke to him. He obtained employment at Findlay’s at the same rate—l4s a day. On the 11th inst. witness went in for a holiday. He was not ill, but he was not fit for work. He bad no sickness at all, but he did not care to go to work. He had formerly kicked up a row in the shop with his mate. He had given one of his chums “black eyes,” but he “could not help it.”—Thomas Wilson, brickmaker, deposed that he was making holiday with the defendant sn the 11th inst. There was a row in the defendant’s workshop, and Mr Guthrie told him to “go.” The defendant said, “ Well, sir, you give me the sack.” Mr Guthrie was present then, but he did not reply. Witness would swear that he was not drunk.—His Worship said that, looking at the standing of the plaintiffs, and their principal intention in bringing the action being evidently to secure discipline in their establishment, he would give judgment for L 5 and costs. Friday, November 24. John Burt v. Weldon, was a claim for 9s in cash, Is the va’ue cf a kni e, and LSO the alleged value of a manuscript. The plaintiff in this case is the same who lately sued Mr Hume, the Superintendent of the Lunatic Asylum, for damages on account of alleged assault. The present claim was for balance of money taken from him when arrested, and not returned when he was discharged from the Asylum. The MSS valued at LSO, was stated by the plaintiff to be of great value to him. He believed that the account of Assyrian antiquities recently published in the paper* was copied from his M.S.S.—Defendant pleaded not indebted, and put in a receipt by the plaintiff for the whele of his property.—Plaintiff was nonsuited. He left the Court muttering that he would tiy to bring it on in another way.

Henry Baxter v. James Hume was a claim for LIOO. The plaintiff, who deposed that he was a miner, said he was committed to the Asylum in 1864. To the best of his belief he was assaulted on December 31, 1874, when all hands were on him. After tea he had been looking out of the window, when Fdwards (oneof the warders) ordered him to walk out, which I e refused to do. Edwards then caught him by the throat and struck him on the nose. Buchanan, the shoemaker, assisted Edwards to drag him outside. One of them kicked him. in the ribs while he was on the floor. The pain he felt for two months so much so that he could not turn on his bed. He was thrown out on to the verandah as.though he were a log. When he had gone to bed Narsden asked him how he Eked it, to which he mad? reply, “You have ruined me for life.” Narsden replied that he would be responsible for what he had done, and next morning wauted to give him salts, M ‘Donald tried to take him into the lavatory. Before this he had attempted to kick M‘Donald. Mr Hume, who was in the lavatory when he was taken there, caught him by the nose, placed his knee on bis heart, and put the feeder with salts into his mouth. The treatment he met with made h<s month sore. Hume said, “Give it to the villa'n, we will teach him to kick.” [At this point witness, addressing the defendant, said; “ You need not shake your head, Mr Hume, I am not under delusions now.”] . From before breakfast that day till after tea next day he was in handcuffs in the solitary cell. He (witness) was too proud to complain to Dr Hulme when he called. He was sane and knew what would be the consequences of complaining. Incross-examination, plaintiff said before he left this Colony his affairs were settled to his own satisfaction at all events, but he declined to say anything

m they were private mitten as well. But he knew a good many people were diepleased thereat. Perhaps Mr Stout himself, for aught he knew, was displeased; er pet haps the ring he (Mr&tont) belonged to was. Ihere were two rings. He could not read Mr Stout off exactly. The ring, that meddled with him were dissatisfied with his settlement of bis affairs. They were very anxious to find out his private business. He came out from England, he had gone shortly after his discharge from the Asylum, to show to the world now he was treated by Mr Hume. He remained at Home nearly three mouths. After his arrival he went, up to the Asylum and spoke cordially, to Mr Hume and M'Dona’d. He met Mr" Hume with his own weapons—hypocrisy. He had seen Burt perhaps half-a-dozen times, and had a drink with him- once enough to iuake him jolly, but he could walk home. The patients in the Asylum had spat on him, but he never retaliated j but when a sane man assaulted nun, he struck him. He had uo peculiar ideas in religion ; he was a Church of England man. He believed his religions views were sounder than Mr Stout’s.—(Laughter.) r * Alexander stated that he examined the plaintiff on Tuesday last, and at that time considered him perfectly rational upon all the subjects they conversed about; but his conduct in the witness-box this alter* noon shook his (the doctor’s) opinion.— Henry Jeffreys, who was an inmate of the Asylum at the time of the alleged assault, could not remember dates, but he recollected distinctly seeing a warder —whose name he did not recollect -kick the plaintiff. There were one or two warders struggling with Baxter. The latter’s statement that he (witness) said “ Fetch James ” was not true. Witness thought he saw Baxter walking about the day after the assault, and did not think him much worse.—John M ‘Laughlin, ex-warder, was called, but his evidence had no bearing upon the case.—Lewis Lawson said that Baxter had complained to him of illtreatment and ill-usage, but he gave no dales. Witness entered the Asylum on January 1, 1875. Baxter was always quiet when he spoke to witness. In crossexamination, witness said that he was baker while be was employed in the Lunatic Asylum, and had nothing to do with looking after the patients. Many of the patients complained of their bread being poisoned and of being disturbed at night 5 but Baxter only complained of ill-treatment. In answer to his Worship, witness said that the complaint was made some time after the iUtreatment was alleged to have taken place.— His Worship ruled that this was no evidence.—Philip Roberts had known Baxter since 1867. In December, 1864, he was suffering from melancholia. When witness again saw him in the Asylum in the early part of 1875 (and he saw him s ven or eight times) le appeared to be perfectly rational, and he made complaint to witness that he had been kicked or had his ribs broken by the warders, whom he did not name. Baxter did not apologise for leaving witness at Tuapeka suddenly or say that he was vexed at having injured him. [Both of'these statements had been wmdo by Baxter in his evidence in chief.] —For the defence, Dr. Thomson said, after perusing the certificate of the plaintiff’s committal to the Asylum, that his insanity was likely to be recurrent and his memory not necessarily good.—Dr. Hulme, Inspector of the Asylum, said that on January 2, 1875, Baxter and another patient were in seclusion for fighting. The former was not in irons.—Mr St .ut said said he was prepared to call additional witnesses, but his Worship considered that unnecessary. In delivering judgment, his Worship remarked that it f was the privilege of every citizen to bring 1 his claim before the Courts, in order that it might be fairly and openly investigated. If he proved it, he got judgment; if not, it was dismissed. And there was no excep tion as regarded the inmates of a lunatic Asylum. Jf th© latter had grounds for com* plaint—and it was quite possible there might be a. case of the kind—they were entitled to the protection of the law. But it must be borne in mind that the Lunatic Asylum was not like the world outside. A man lawfully committed to the Asylum to be cared for and medically treated was to bo treated in an exceptional manner. If asked to go out by his attendants, who tßint- bis doing so will be for the benefit of his health, and he refuses to go, the attendant is quite justified in taking him out by force, if necessary, using, of course, no more force than is necessary to effect that purpose. But, in cases of complaints of tbia sort, the assertions of insane persons to be worth anything, must be confirmed by other evidence, or by facts proved which would lead to the irresis table conclusion that the insane person was speaking the truth, though when the events took place he was not in a state of insanity. But there was nothing of that kind here; there was no silent witness. The case turned entirely upon the evidence of the plaintiff. In every case of this sort one .•mportant circumstance should be established. The complaint of assault or illtreatment should be made immediately. It was unfair to 1 all concerned m the place that the person alleging to be assaulted should bottle up hio inquiry for two years and then bring it forward for investigation when the parties who were present at the time might be out of the country could not be adduced as witnesses. (Mr Fraser, for plaintiff, interposed the remark that plaintiff only left the Asylum in January, 1876), Then one year elapsed. He said it was unfair to bring forward a charge of this kind even six mouths afterwards. Looking at the length of time that had elapsed, and the contradictory nature o' tie evidence of the other party examined, he did not think there was even a shadow of suspicion against the defendant, or those who conducted the Asylum. HVI it been otherwise, he would not have hesitated to have spoken, and that strongly; because he knew it was human to err, and there plight be oases of persons riding on top of their position. Judgment was given for defendant.

Malcolm Stewart v. John Chaplin. Claim, L 8 11s, for wages as groom, &c. Mr Aldridge for plaintiff; Mr Stout for defendant. Plaintiff, a “ new chum,” deposed that he was engaged at the Barracks by Mr Chaplin as groom. Defendant said at the time he was engaged “L2 10s a week are my wages.” Went down to the stables and worked as groom. Had received L 3 19s as wages for three weeks and two days. The clerk told him that, tinless he was willing to workfor 2os a week he had better go. Had to pay LI a week for board out of that sum. —Cross-examined by Mr Stout; Defendant said at the time he engaged me that if I suited he would promote me to a stable up-country, the grooms of which got L2 10s a week. Charles Duke, barrack master, deposed that Mr Chapliu said that he would take Stewart on as groom if he liked, and give him what he was worth when he saw how ke “shaped.” —William Johnson, who was at the barracks when the engagement was made, partly corroborated plaintiff’s evidence.—Plaintiff (recalled) said he was in the police force at present.—Mr Stout said that xt was evident from the evidence that there was no engagement. —John Chaplin, defendant, ' deposed that the highest wages he gave to grodms was L2 10s a week. Plaintiff wasnot fit to take charge of a stable j but had he stopped"]

have been *iatatA-& Smith, paynuwto to Mr Chaplin, raid that men and boys.hod bean taken mi Inthe eatahfobmeat for their board /«ay—- , Ma t Finney, groom, -was of plaiSaff'iwas not qualified as a groom— 4 ‘ he had no learning.”—His Worship sold that it 'm* clear 'was. an. indefinite agreement 4 but he must set his face againstamanemploying a servant and then giving him what he thought fit. He should award the jdain> ' tiff at the rate of 35a a week,—Judgment for plaintiff for L 3, with costs. Joseph Peart v. Alexander Wilson.— Claim, Lls 6s 2d, on a partnership account. Stoutappearedfor pl^tiff^MrTurfiDn, , for defendant, the plaintiffs case was ‘ heard on the 21st instant, and to-day the evidence for the defence was taken,—Judement for L 7 2s 2d, with costs. _ James Patterson v. John Gibson.—Claim, ’ j . 12s for board andiodging. Judgment by default, with costs. - * [We are compelled to bold over the rest of our Resident Magistrate's Court.] v