MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume IX, Issue 912, 10 June 1903, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

INNKEEPER’S LIEN

At tho Magistrate’s Court yoßterday morning, boforo Mr Barton, S.M., tho case of A. C. Hodgo v. F. W. C. Mackuy, was heard. T'Uo plaintiff claimed T 26 10s for hu mess, gig, aud rug, seized by dofoudant Ou March 26th.

Mr L. Roes appeared for plaintiff, and Mr K. N. Junes for defendant.

Mr L Roos, in opening the case for tho plaintiff, said the action was brought to recover certain good and chattels, alleged to have been detained on that date, possession of wlncli was refused. Plaintiff's evidence would show us to whether or not tho dofoudant was entitled to withhold possession of these articles. Tho Court would have no difficulty in determining whechor there was a lion on the chatties, and that was tho case in point. Counsel was prepared to admit that an innkeeper has a lien on the goods of his lodgor.

Alt' Jones : That is out - dofonce ; that thoro was souio money duo to defendant by tho plaintiff, and that was tho roason for keeping the goods. Alfred U. Hodge, plaintiff, living at Te Aral*, stated that ho remembered when bis father Hold his interest in tho Muretvai Hotel to defendant. When witness heard bis father had sold out ho came down from work. Defendant asked witness to stop to work the tolophono and other works about tho plaeo. Witness was engaged at other work away from Murowai—working on tho survey with Air Brooking, for which he received 6s por day and found. Witness consented to stop and lend a hand at the hotel. Witness entered on duties on 3rd Alarch, and worked at tho hotel for two woeta and three days, .Defendant then decided to have nothing to do with the tolephcne. Tho chief postmaster asked witness to remain until tho telephone was shifted. Witness did any work that ho was asked to do by defendant. Witnoss never agreed to work with tho defendant for nothing, and would not havo done so if asked. Whon the telephone was shifted witnoss went to defendant for settlement on the 26th March, and finding him engaged wont to got his horse, and after catching him went for tho harness, which was left in witness’s trap. Ho found tho trap iockod to a house block, and tho harness, rug, and whip were not there. Witnoss went to defendant, aud askod him if he know whore the harness was Defendant said he had thorn lockod up. Witness said that ho wanted the harness as he was going away. Witness proposed to settle, and defendant said he would not give up tho harness until witness paid for his board. Defendant claimed JE3 11s. Witness told defendant ho would havo to pay him something for the work done. Witnoss then took proceedings. Defendant said witness had plenty of friends, and could borrow a saddlo to go away. By Air Jones : Witness never told tho defendant that the articles were his father's. Witness claimed £1 5s per week for board. His father was in charge of tho telephone up to tho time ho sold out. Ton shillings a week was paid for looking after tho telephone. Witness spoke to Air Sampson, after ho had beon thoro tv/o weeks and throojdays, about payment as to board. Air Sampson advisod witness to send in his claim for board. Witness told defendant if ho paid the two and a half vvocks’ wages ho would pay his board for the last week. William Alfred Hodge, Te Arai \alley._ deposed that his interest in tho Alurewai Hotel was acquired by defendant. Witness did net instruct his son to work the telephone after it had been takon over by defendant. Witness never led defendant to expect that tho plaintiff would work for nothing at the telephone. By Air Jones : Witness received payment up till tho time the telephono was shifted. AJr Sampson said tho telephone had been worfcod satisfactorily by witness. Air Jones said that the plaintiff had every right to pay for his board. The defondant did not look upon him as a sor vant. If anything was owing for board an innkeeper had a perfect right to retain the goods. , . F. W. C. Alackay, defendant, licensee of tho Alurewai Hotol, stated that on taking over tho hotel ho did not take possession of tho telephone. Witness took over the hotel on March 3rd, and Aliss Hodgo was in charge of tho telephone until tho 7th. He made no arrangement with the plain tiff about working tho telephone. Plaintiff was only asaed to kill tho sheep as an obligeruent. As the result of an interview with Mr Sampson, witness decided not to take over tho telephone. Tho only work Sons by plaintiff was tho killing of threo cr four sheep. Plaintiff stayed at wit»icss' place from the 3rd to 26th March, had his board. Witnos? would give uo tho goods when the board was paid. By Air Rees : Plaintiff did not iced pigs nr cut firowood. Ho milkod a cow a few times Air Hodge, senr., told defendant he would havo to give a month’s notice before ho could put up tho telephone. Mr Jones stated that defendant had not beon sworn, and could not take the post and telepbono office from Ur Hodge. His Worship, in giving judgment, said 4’no evidence was of a conflicting natureThere was little doubt as to whether defendant had a right to claim for the two weeks and three days, because some work haff been done which he would look upon a 8 payment. It was clear one weeks board was due, and the lien must be unt.l that amount was paid. Judgment would be for defendant. No costs were allowed,