Feilding S.M. Court.

Feilding Star, Volume XVII, Issue 95, 18 October 1895, Page 2

Feilding S.M. Court.

THIS DAY. | Before Mr R. L. Stanford, S.M.I Mary Lane v. Frederick Klink ; a judgment summons claim £1 18s lOd. Mr Richmond appeared for judgment creditor. An order was made that the amount be paid forthwith, or in default seven days' imprisonment in Wanganui gaol. James Purkiss v. R. Whale ; claim £5 10s Id. Judgment for amount claimed with 16s costs. W. A. Sandilands v. Jas. Miller ; claim £2 7s Bd. Mr Richmond for plaintiff. Judgment for the amount claimed with costs 9s. W. A. Sandilands v. David H. and A. McKenzie : claim £'11 ss. Mr Richmond for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed with costs 20s and solicitors fee 15s 6d. R. F. Haybittle v. A. Hamilton ; claim £2 6s 3d. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed with costs ss, solicitor's fee ss. Allan Dickenson v. Joseph Harris ; claim £27 ss. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff and Mr Richmond for defendant who claimed a set off of .£27 6s Id. Mr Sandilands in opening the case for the plaintiff said it was a cjaim to recover for twenty two weeks' wages at 30s per week, less £5 15s paid on account. A set off was claimed, but denied by plaintiff. The defence was thai the claim had been settled by W. J. Harris (deceased), for whom the plaintiff worked. A. Dickenson deposed : Was a sawyer residing at Pembertou ; knew W. J. Harris, a son of the defendant, for whom he worked in October, 1893 ; for this work he was paid in .January, 1894 ; on the 2nd February following went to work for him again at 30s per week and found ; worked for Harris from February 4th till July 11th, 1894; on the evening of July 11th was paid £5 ; only received £5 15s cash for this work ; was never given any reason why deceased i would not pay him. Cross-examined : Sued the defendant because the work was done ou his section, and only recognised deceased as agent for his father ; denied: the items claimed in tbe set-off. To the Bench : Believed the signature to the letter ordering a watch was his. Thos. Mclveen deposed : Knew W. J. Harris and A. Dickenson ; worked for the former while plaintiff was there ; plaintiff was a fair workman ; in November and December, 1893, knew plaintiff was getting 30s per week from W. J. Harris, but did not know what he was to be paid on the latter agreement. Cross-examined : Thought 30s per week was a fair wage for the work Dickenson was doing from February to July ; did not think J. Dickenson was such a good workman as A. Dickenson ; it was commonly understood in the camp that Pask and Smith were getting 30s« per week ; knew plaintiff had a bad cold, but never knew that he was laid up ; 25s per week was about the wage paid after Christmas until bushfelhng commenced again. A. Mill ward deposed : Knew W. J. Harris ; worked for his father through him (W. J. Harris) ; was getting 9s per day, and was paid by Joseph Harris, father of deceased. The defence was that the wages were £1 a week, and not 30s, and that various items had been supplied and were now claimed as a set off. Joseph Harris deposed : Knew that the plaintiff worked for his son in November 1893 ; thought his wages were 30s at this time ; plaintiff asked witness for a settlement in November 1894, and witness said he would have to see his son first ; the cash book (produced) was his son's ; between May 31st and June 25th sent his son i'3s and authorised him to draw £"30 on July 10th ; liabilities incurred were settled, as they became due, by witness ; from his son's books he did not think anything was due to plaintiff. Cross-examined : There was no entry made that his son intended to charge plaintiff for £5 board and lodging. Defendant was cross-examined at length as to the items in dispute. Euphemia H. Harris deposed : Was sister of W. J. Harris and went to Ran- ! giwahia to keep house for him about June 1894 ; her brother told witness Dickenson was paid ; plaintiff stayed | with her brother for four or five weeks I doing nothing. His Worship in giving judgment admitted the claim for 22 weeks' wages at 30s per week, less L 5 15s admitted to have been paid. Of the contra claim he allowed L 5 i9a 2d, which reduced the claim to L2l 5s lOd for which amount he gave judgment for the plaintiff with costs of court LI 16s solicitor's fee £1 11s, and witnesses' expenses L 3 13s. The Court then adjourned.