Feilding IS M. Court.

Feilding Star, Volume XVI, Issue 192, 13 February 1895, Page 2

Feilding IS M. Court.

Thursday, February 12th. (Before Mr Stanford, S.M.) The following cases were heard after we went to press yesterday : — The case Police v. C. A. W. Hunt was adjourned again, to the 26tb instant, on the application of Conetahln Tuohy, who appeared for the , Poli'-n. Edmund K>lly v. Eobert Whale; claim £21. Mr Reade for plaintiff and Mr Richmond for defendant. This was a case in which plaintiff claimed 4.21 for wages and defendant put in a counter claim for £18 19s 6d, made up of £13 for lodgings and £5 19s 6d for money lent and goods supplied, the latter amount being admitted by I laintiff. Defendant disputed that he o.red plaintiff anything for wages as the latter went to live with defendant, w hose place he (plaintiff) desired to n.ake his home. E. Kelly deposed : Agreed to work for defendant at £ 1 a we k and found ; started to work for him in December, 1893. and worked for him at Waituna till February, 1894, when defendant shifted to Halcornbe, and witness went with him ; after being away from him for a while went back again in June, 1894, and nothing was said about the pay, but witness understood it was on the same terms as the previous engagement. Cross-examined : In June, 1894, was at Waituna when he was asked to go to Halcombe to see defendant abcut work ; no arrangement was marie for witness to work for his board and lodgings only ; denied that he ever heard of complaints about his WO"t. Robert Parr, coachbuilder and blacksmith, deposed that he was acquainted with plaintiff's work and hn was a very good ehoer ; could get plaintiff work now at 30s a week. Chas. Eggers deposed that he was acquainted with plaintiff's work and ho had no fault to find with it. Mr H. 11. Bilderbeck was sworn in as interpreter as defendant was a German and could not speak English plainly. For the defence, Mr Richmond called Robert \Vhale who deposed : No arrangement was made as to wages when Kelly went to work for him ; did nut offer to give plaintiff £l a week and found in June, 1894, as he merely went to stay with witness. Cross examined : From November, 1893, to March, 1894, employed plaintiff and was paying him £1 a week add fonnd ; witness' son wrote to Kelly in June, 1594, asking him to go to work for witness ; took Kelly back on account of witness' son wanting him to do so. Mrs Whale (wife of defendant) gave evidence. Ernest Whale deposed : Was son of defendant ; Kelly offered to work for witness' father for a little more than his keep during the winter. Eobert Whale, junr., deposed : When Kelly went to work for witness' father on the second occasion he was told by defendant that he could not be paid the same wages as on the first occasion Otto Natzke and Ernest Schwass also gave evidence. £Ls Worship considered that in June, 1894, both partiea intended the old arrangements to continue. Of the £21 claimed a set off of £5 19s 6d was admitted. Judgment would be for £lo 0s 6d, with cos f s 303 and solicitor's fee 21s, witnesses expenses Parr 10s and Eggers 17s were aloo allowed. William Wildbore (aged 7 years) and Henry Bingham (agad 8 years) were cbarged by the Police, on the information of Mrs Dugan, with having stolen apples from that lady's garden, on January 15th. The case .was dismissed, the Bench doubting that the boys had been in the gar- j den. The Court then adjourned.