RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURTS.

Grey River Argus, Volume IX, Issue 710, 6 August 1870, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURTS.

CAMPTOWN.

Wednesday, August 3. . (Before Mr Warden Whitefoord.) Haisty v. Dormer. — A claim for L 8 10s 7d for goods supplied by plaintiff, a storekeeper at Red Jack's, to defendant, a miner. Verdict for amount, with 27s costs. Same v. Brackenridge. — Claim for L 9 19s 7d. Verdict for plaintiff, with costs, 275. Fitzgerald v. Brittain. — A claim for L 4 for butcher meat supplied at Nelson Creek.. Judgment for amount, with 15s costs. Carey v. Kenney. — Thi3 was a case of disputed partnership accounts between two miners from No Town. The balance claimed was L 9 14s 4d. Defendant admitted Ll 14s 4d. There was an item of L 5 which was struck out ; plaintiff was directed to sue in the Warden's Court. Verdict for plaintiff for Ll 14s 4d, with 9s costs. Fitzgerald v. Jones and Jenkins. — A claim for L 5 15s for meat. Defendants admitted the debt, but they disputed plaintiff's right to receive payment. Plaintiff proved his right to the book debts of the firm of Fitzgerald and Scanlan, IS elson . Creek. Judgment for amount claimed, with 21s costs. ...."■ King v. Cohen.— -A claim' of L69s 9d for timber supplied to defendant, a publican at Paddy's Gully. There was a setoff for 10s cash given to plaintiff's mate. Verdict for L 5 19s 9d, with 29s costs. Goddard v. Lavsen. — Claim for the amount of a dishonored promissory note for L 4 5s lOd. Verdict for plaintiff. T. W. Tymons v. J. Hewett.— A claim for L 26 12s 9d for goods supplied at Red J ack's. Verdict for amount claimed, with 27s costs. ' C. Petersen v. Mrs Holmes. — A claim for L 3 7s for wages and the value of an iron bucket. The defence was that plaintiff did not perform his work properly, and that the iron bucket was a wooden one. Verdict for defendant.

Tymons v. O'Shea. — Claim for L 9 53 for goods. Verdict for plaintiff, with 13s costs. . . De Pearson v. Revell, and Revell v. De Pearson were adjourned to next Court day. Margaret O'Rourke v. Mrs M'Kenzie. — A claim for L2B wages as a barmaid. Judgment for amount, with costs. To be paid ■within two months. Helena Fedsera De Pearson v. Susan Wallace.— This was an action for damages for detention and wrongful conversion of property. Damages were laid at LBO. Mr Drnry appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Davies for the defence. Mr Drury stated his client's case, and put in a list of the property claimed, which consisted of feather bed and bedding, furniture, wearing apparel, jewelry, including a gold watch, valued at L 22, valuable documents, deeds of settlbment, &c, amounting altogether to the value of LlO2 ss, besides souvenirs and keepsakes of "priceless value." The plaintiff said she formerly resided at Nelson Creek, and defendant was her servant. A storekeeper at that place having obtained a verdict against her in the Resident Magistrate's Court, she proceeded to Grey mouth to procure the money to pay him. Previous to leaving Nelson Creek defendant asked for her wages, and she (plaintiff) having no money at hand gave her the gold watch mentioned in the bill of particulars. Defendant took the watch at the estimated value, L 22. Plaintiff also made over to defendant all the property claimed, to prevent the judgment creditor seizing and' sacrificing it before she could return with the money to pay him. (The bill of sale was produced.) It purported to be an absolute sale of all plaintiff's property to defendant for the wages due her. (It was not signed). Defendant was to receive L 2 per week for taking care of the house and property during plaintiff's absence. Plaintiff was away some time, and when she returned and saw defendant the latter refused to give up possession of the property. Defendant, an old Scotchwoman, said plaintiff owed L3O for wages, besides L 8 4s cash lent and for washing. All the goods mentioned in the inventory were not given in charge to her, neither were they of the value alleged. She was .willing, to give up the property she received, provided the money owing to her was paid. " She didna' want ,the. duds, she wadna* hao the rubbnsli, sho only wanted her am." The case occupied the attention oE the Court for some time, and eventually his Worship made an order that the property claimed should be given up, and. that plaintiff should pay the defendant her. wages to the amount of L2O. The costs; to be divided.

Andrew Doolen v. Edward Edward. — A claim for wages at L2per week, amounting to L4O .There was a set-off put in for L 8 2s, for clothing, cash, and drinks. Plaintiff said he was employed by defendant to work at his farm and do general work at 40s a week, with board and lodging. He .remained away from work at out*, time for a month, and when he came back plaintiff re-engaged him, and discharged., two other men. There was nothing said, either when he went away or when he returned aboxit the wages being 30s per week. He' admitted certain items in the set-off, but disputed one for tobacco as. being an over-charge ; he smoked very littlo, being only a beginner. In fact, the* pipe he U3ed was a joint-stock affair, being; used in common by another man and him-" self.— Michael Drennan said that, front conversations he had with defendant, h&

was under the impression that plaintiff was to receive 40s a week, and he (witne&s) considered plaintiff was worth it. — The defendant said lie never intended giving plaintiff more than 30s per week, and he was willing to pay that amount. It was the usual rate of wages for the work, and plenty of good men could be had for the money. Plaintiff was more like master of the concern than a hired man, and although drinks were put in the set-off, if all the drinks plaintiff had were charged to him, he would have been in defendant's debt. — Thos. Edward said he was in defendant's employment at the same woi'k as plaintiff. Ho was getting 30s a week. It was the regular wages, and plaintiff told him 30a was the wages he was to get. Plaintiff always had the run of . the house and the bar. — The Magistrate said it was merely for him to decide the rate of wages. The evidence showed that 30s per week was the usual rate, and plaintiff should have had a proper understanding about the matter when he came back to work for the defendant the second time. The wage 3 would therefore be fixed at 30s a week ; the drink charged in the set-off would be struck out. The Court would never allow publicans to induce or encourage men to spe"nd hai'd-earned wages about their bars or tap-rooms. The set-off would thus be reduced to L 6 7s. The verdict would be for plaintiff for L 23 13s, with costs and expenses to be paid by defendant. Mr Drury for the plaintiff. The Court adjourned to 17th August.