Feilding R.M Court

Feilding Star, Volume XV, Issue 108, 3 November 1893, Page 2

Feilding R.M Court

(Before Mr Brabant, R.M.) The following is the completion of cases heard yesterday after we went to press : — The case of Crsbb ▼. Atkinson was continued. For the defence, Mr "Richmond called Arnold Hugh Atkinson, who disputed baring ordered certain articles charged in bin account. He told plaintiff's employes the articles were there, and as he did not require them requested tbeir re- i moval ;. was prepared to 9wear tbat the . articles disputed were either overcharged or not ordered. Crc»s-cxi mined : It was arranged with Crabb tbat witness was to be charged 4s a load for packing. Alfred James Palmer deposed to re« numbering certain wire being sent up to Mr A i kin sow and haying been taken by iiim, ns it was not what the former w:intcd. A receipt was produced.] Was prepared to swear he had the wire, and not Mr Atkinson; there were 25 jbs of staples on defendant's place when witness went to work for bim. Plaintiff, baring been re-called, explained tbat the carpenter took one lot and the other was sent, that is how two ( ntric.'s of staples appeared on one day ; his roason for deducting disputed articles in previous accounts was that he did not wish to lo«e defendant's custom, and the items were only small. Mr Kichmond contended that defend ant hid made reasonable endeavour to settle the claim, £20 Os 9d of which de« fendant admitted. He applied to hare the question of costs considered in favor of defendant. Mr Sandilend*, in reply, said that if defendant had gone through the last account rendered he would have no diffl culty in understanding it. There was no special arrangement made as to prices, nnd he contended that it was not unfair to charge plaintiff the same as other people. As to costs, he was entitled to them if any amount abore the admitted sum was proved. His Worship, in summing up, thought that if defendant wished to go into the charges for various items he should haye objected more promptly. Defendant hod established reasons in several instances where reductions should be made. It was shown that 18lbs of staples should him- been nails, and there was no reason why a man should lose the price of an nit do merely through a clerical error. Judgment was given for the amount, less the Minis of £20 0s 9d (paid into Court) ii nd 12 19s, leaving £2 lls fid to be paid, Defendant to pay bearing fee of lUf, but till ether costs to be paid by the parties incurring them. K 11. Crnbb t G. F. Poster ; claim £\ 6s 7d. Mr Saodilands for plaintiff. Judgment was given for the amount claimed, with costs 28s. E.G. Hodgeuaan v li. Burne ; claim £28 4s yd. Mr Reade for plaintiff and j Mr Prior for defendant. The claim was for clerical work done at the rate of Is per horn-, and also for commission on debts collected at the rate of 10 per cent. Ernest Christopher Hodgenian deposed that be had experience in book keeping ; Mr Bnrne spoke to bim about doing up the books of the firm of Burne and Co. as they were behind ; nothing was said about remuneration or board ; went to work for Burne on February 7th, 1893, was working lor Mrs Scott for 10s a week and board ; left defendant on June sth ; firm broke up on May 30th, after which he applied for payment. Mr Prior stated the defence was that the money was not owing. Plaintiff was always treated as a friend by defendant and stopped with the latter. Richard Burne was called for the defence and deposed: Bad employed plaintiff on certain occasions; defendant used to stop with witness as a friend. Mr Reade quoted an authority in support of his case and contended the amount was not excessive. The H.M , in summing up, said the plaintiff did not allege any contract for whnt he did while staying at defendant's house. The largeness of the claim sug« gested that jit can't be sustained. Plaintiff wag a mate of Warner who was a partner with defendant. He was of opinion defendant's story was (he most likely one. If plaintiff expected payment he should have entered into a contract. It was clear plaintiff could not claim anything, and he would be nonsuited with costs, 575. Thomas Chirm was charged by his wife, who applied for a protection order, with using threatening language to her at Penaberton. Mr Prior Appeared for the defence. Elizabeth Chirm was sworn and gave evidence as to her being afraid of her husband. Cross-examined : She objected to doing washing and mending for her husband, witb whom she was not living ; admitted making a dart at bim and striking bim on one occasion in the back witb a carving knife. By the Bench : Was maintaining her., self and got no support from her husband. Constable Tuohy was called and deposed to making enquiries, which tended to show there was at much blame on one side as on the other ; did not think there would be any harm if Chirm were bound over in his own recognisance. Defendant was bound over to keep the peace for 12 months in his own recognisance of £20 and to pay 7s costs. THIS DAY. < (Before Messrs Goodbehere and Kirton, J.IVs) Elizabeth Chirm v Thomas Hill Chirm. Defendant was charged with using abusive language to plaintiff in a public place. Mr Reade for the complainant. The wife and two sons gave evidence. Fined ss, costs 2s, solicitor's fee 21s. Frederick David Cbinn charged his father with assaulting him by shaking his fist at him. Mr Reade appeared for complainant. Accused pleaded not guilty, case dismissed.