RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURTS. GREYMOUTH.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1098, 3 February 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURTS. GREYMOUTH.

Thursday, February 1. • • (Before W.H.lleveli, Esq., R.M.) ■ CIVIL CASES, .v ; M 'Lean v. Batters. — Tula was — awr action for breach of contract, damages being laid at LIOO. Mr Perkins for plaintiff, and Mr Newton for defendant. Mr Perkins, iri opening the case, stated that the case, was one of those which? h ?id to depend on the oath of one man? against another, as the' only . witnesses were up at" Reef ton; Batters was brought down from Melbourne to put up certain machinery, under agreement, which was. not fulfilled. . The agreement was put in". Ho called William Miean, who stated that he. was; contractor for putting up crushing machinery on Rhody Ryan.V claim at the reefs. . Heengaged ßatters at Langland's foundry, Melbourne, for ten months, to put xjp the machinery, at L 6; per week for the first four months, arid; Lsfor tho remainder of the term. The defendant arrived at Murray Creek on the sth December, plaintiffipaying all expenses since Batters left Melbourne. The machinery not being on the ground, defendant was engaged in superintending the : erection Of the engine site. The first disagreement '• took place on 24th January.' On that, day defendant, who' was the worse for drink, came to him and told him to send' down men to get the machineryout of the creek. He became very abnsive/ and defied plaintiff to put him out of the hut. Plaintiff told him to go out of the hut, as he was not , going to allow him to domineer over him, but he expected him back to work at eight .o'clock the next morning.. He never released -him -from :his engagagement. , .Defendant told him if he was going to be forced back by law, he : would do the machinery more harm ' than good. He had paid him L 49 fori wages— altogether, with expenses, he had paid him over L7O. The men- on; the claim were waiting, for. the services of an engineer. By Mr Newton : Since defendant had been up at Murray Creek he had performing his duties/ Defendant had altered the original plans. Plaintiff could.not summon him atßeefton, because there was no Resident Magistrate there.^ The hut in which ; ; plaintiff plaintiff 's brother. Donnell, the carpenter^ and dei feiadant resided belonged to plaintiff. He engaged defendantin Melbourne himself, and on his arrival at Murray Creek he told him that he might stop in his : (plaintiff 's) hut as long as he was. was^ civil. He had been .engaged ;n erecting mining machinery; but had never took a contract before .until he had taken Rhody's Ryan's. Told defendant that he would have to provide himself with a house. Was not anxious at the present time to retain defendant in his employ ; but was up to the time of the disagreement, as he believed him to be a good workman. Had not entered into an engagement with any other engineer to erect the machinery. This closed ; the plaintiff's case. Robert Batters stated that he was engaged in Mel-' bourne by plaintiff. All the arrangements aa to his living was made in Melbourne. M'Lean told him that a hut would .be built for the engine drivers, and that the cost of board will' riot be above 25s per week. The only accommodation was at Black's Point, aiud that cost.L2los per week. The defendant' hare detailed the circumstarices < of the dispute between him and M'Lean whicn did not differ materially with plaintiff^'s statement,, except that plaintiff's endeavored to pull him out of his bed, and threw his coat outside of the hut. Was not given to drink, as he had been a teet6taller since he had been up in Ueefton, with the exception of New Year's Day, a

when- he;tbok ;'i glass or two. Mr Perkins cross-examin&d, defendant at some length as to^hJLssf being intoxicated during the time hew'asin plaintiff's employ, which however he strongly denied ; nor did he threaten to damage the machinery. He refusedJiO ; pay:,Mr^^ j^^an i 's.Jt>rothgrB Wr account, but had paid his own. Mr ' M'Lean had asked him to pay the storekeeper's account, but he refused.. '.l)oii-. neUjitheicarpenter, was, present^wjkenjfcjie^;; disturbance took placo. , , Had more respect for Rhody' Ryaftttian to threaten to damage the machinery. Defendant then stated that he could .obtain no accommodation in the neighborhood of the claim, and that there .was no road to Cement Town. He "had" never tried to get'lodgings along with Rhody Ryan;-, vlnar reply to Mr Newton, defendant 'stateclf. that he left 'the claim because plaintiff abused, and assaulted him. The various m counsel haying addressed the Court, his Worship said the a^eem^ months, and there" was nothing "relating'to^ board in it. 'He did riot think 1 there; wai anything to justify the defendantin 1 lea'tr*-' ing his work,:as he .had dpne.j It was very probable that plaintiff mightorder him to leave his i hut, but, that;^^diiliioti. amount to a dismissal or breaking the engagement. Judgment would be forLso and'c'osts.' ; " ''" ! ' : . ";'" ;; '/■' • ■ : ' t -* i --- ..