RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, AHAURA.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1459, 7 April 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, AHAURA.

../ Friday, April 4/ • (Before C. Whitefoord, Esq., R.M. CIVIL CASES. - -Waller Vi Erskine. — An -action- to cover L2O, for wages as a farm laborer. The defendant paid 14s 4d into Court as payment in full. The plaintiff said he 1 worked-" for - the - defendant for nearly "a"' year, and whenever the^ had a settlement he found that his employer had a contra account against him, for. grog, _tp nekrly the amount of his wriges. L He now claimed 12 weeks' wages, at 30s per week, and an additional 10s per week for the four weeks of harvest, making altogether the sum sued for. He admitted owing the defendant some money, for .drinks, but not to the amount charged against him. He also had some tobacco, and some clothing, and cash. The defendant, a farmer and hotel-keeper at Totara Plat, said the last settlement between the plaintiff and himself took place on 21st Februaiy, when the plaintiff was mr debted to Kirn in the amount of L 5 10s. The entries in the book produced were correct ; the defendant had the refreshments and other goods Charged for; The balance coming to him was 14s 4d, and he wouldn't have that much to draw if he had been allowed to drink it out. The Magistrate, on examining the books of the defendant, said it was disgraceful that a licensed publican should ; permit those in his employment to squander their wages, as it was clear, from the defendant's books he had allowed the plaintiff to do. It was scandalous that a man working nearly ten months should be? at the end brought in debt for liquor. His Worship then struck out the items charged for drinks, and, giving the defendant credit for the cash, clothes, and tobacco charged for and admitted, gave the plaintiff a verdict. for LI 1 10s with costs. Mr Staite for the defendant. Pridgeon v. Methven.— ln this case the plaintiff sought , to recover, L4O as damages for alleged breach of agreement about the renting of ~"sr gTass-paddock: The plaintiff, who- is-, a dairyman at Half-Ounce, stated that he made a verbal agreement in May, 1872, withithe defendant, a farmer at Totara, that the latter was to. allow him to. graze! cattle in/one of ; his paddocks till the following September. He was. to pay L 5 for ;the privilege. In June defendant commenced to plough the land, and plaintiff had to. remove his cattle. In the meantime feed rose to a high price, and the plaintiff not being in a position to purchase food for: his cattle at the increased price, some of them died. He also had to purchase milk from other dairymen, and sell -at a : loss to keep his trade together. The defence was that the grass never was rented. The plaintiff merely wanted to put his cattle within the enclosure, so that they would be easily found when wanted. On this statement being made the plaintiff inquired of the Oourt if it was reasonable to suppose that his "cows' could live by; eating the fencing," and he also wanted to know for what purpose "cattle were put into grass paddocks if not to eat; grass." It was denied, for the defendant, : that it was ever agreed the paddock : istlOUia-xrofr-bcrplau s licd-l7cfort7 September. The Magistrate said it was not to be supposed from, the prices for produce; ruling in the district that any man wouldbe found to rent 90 acres^iif grazing land! for nearly six months fpr.LS, The plaintiff; might'hay.e.been.undersuch, an impression, j but all the : circumstances ; were against i the probability of , the defendant ever having made snch an agreement. Verdict ' for defendant with posts, flfr Qtaite for : defendant, . i ; ' White and Garth v. Terry.— The de- : fendant was sued for LlB, cash lent and: goods supplied at Ahaura. The def en- i dant put : in his discharge'in bankruptcy i as a bar to actionfor the greatet part of the amount claimed. In -explanation, it appeared that other "persons from whom the plaintiffs coald' now recover* were liable for the greater portion of the debt. The cash lent referred to a sum of L 27 which the plaintiffs lent to ihe defendant, j He paid back LQ3, on account of this loan, as he alleged, but the plaintiffs placed a : portion of the . money against_ a separate ■ account, for which the defendant and: others were held responsible. . The Court ! ruled that the money paid on. account of i the advance should be. placed towards' liquidating ; it. This reduced the claim! against the defendant to L 4, against : which he had a set-off for;L4 ss. The: act-off was disallowed, with the exception, of two items. A verdict was given for i % p}aihtiffs : for L§ 10s, with costs. Mr Staite for^ the defendant. ••■:■•; : Hayes v. Pridgeon.— A judgment sutn- ; moris for L 8 2s 6d. The defendant was allowed one week to pay the amount, or; in default one. month's imprisonment.. . ■ Hayes v. Jane Leathwood.— A ."judg- ; ment summons fqr L 3. . The defendant declared her entire disability, 'to pay, and expressed a hope that the plaintiff "would i insist upon- her .'Making, it,. out" in gaol.; It was at length arranged that when times got better the defendant would be called upon to pay. ' -'. f Judgments for the plaintiffs by .default were given in Kennedy and Hunter- v. Letchei, for Lll 14s 5d ; and in Wilckens v. Watkinson, for L 3 5s 6d: In the latter case the defendant made a written offer to pay 10s per week, which the : plaijatiff accepted. ;"■ '■ ■•■ ; . ■•• ..;?, :