RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT REEFTON.

Inangahua Times, Volume IV, Issue 37, 4 July 1877, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT REEFTON.

Tuesday, July 3, 1877. [Before Edwabd Shaw, Esq., R.M,] DjANI) QF Hpra| POI(JP4NY V. J^'ABPHK. His Worship, in referenco to this case, said he had not yet prepared his Judg? ment, as he was anxious to obtain some reported oases bearing upon the point in issue, and which were not available in R.eefton.. Judgment was therefore further adjourned. B4JHY CEEEK COMPANY (^N HQUIDATIQN) V. WHE^AN. Claim for £31 ss, for calls. No, appearance of defendant, Judgment for the amount with costs. cocKßyuN v. m'neil.. Thia was an action to recover £IQ, the value of a roan horse alleged to have been sold to defendant, and sundry small items amounting in all to £3 15s 6,d. The case had been heard at a former sitting of the Court, when judgment was reserved. His Worship after reviewing the evidence in the] case, gave judgment for plaintiff for £19 lls, with costs and professional fee, and remarked that if defendant accopted friendly advice, he would never again, deal in horses, as it was quite evident that he was perfectly innocent of the ways of the .trade. Mr Staite for plaintiff; and Mr Pitt far defendant. ASTOJJ V. PJBB.NnpiOE. A claim for £45, being the amount alleged to he due in respect to the supply qnder contract of 200, tons of PQal to the Energetic engine, Prentice had contracted with the Energetic Company to supply all coal required for a term of twelve months, and subsequently svb-let the contract tQ plaintiffs. The latter, however, after working for five week.s, discovered that they could not m,ake the contract pay, ar^d desired to bo released, of their bitr gain. By the terras of an, agreement drawn up between the parties, plaintiffs* in the event of tbeir throwing tip the con» tract before the expiration of their term, were to forfeit the su,m of £5 deposit* and an, amount equal to 25 per cent on the work performed. They, however, re« fused to relinquish the contract unless they reoeived the £5 in question, as also the percentage { whereupon Prentice took forcible j osaession of the mine, j Mr Staite appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Pitt for defendant. The following evidence was taken :■— John Aston— l entered into an agree • ment, dated }7th May, with defendant to raise coal. I signed the agreement produced. Defendant did not give me a copy of the agreement. There were two of u,s for- two weeks, and three for threj weeks engaged in the contract. We ' were to keep the Energetic engine going, I Defendant had the contract, We were to keep the engineer supplied. We got out abo^t $GQ tons, and i% is the contract price, We kept the engines supplied, and in addition defendant sold some of j the coal. The engine hums about 25 tons a week. He told us that he could use more coal if we could get it, At the termination of the five weeks we told defendant we wished to throw up the contract, and ho agreed- We were to forfeit £5 and 25 per cant on the amount of coal supplied, The agreement saya we were I to be paid monthly, but we gat no money. We asked him at the end of the first month for money, and got none. When he said he would not pay us, we said we would not give the contract up. He then came last Thursday and took possession of the mine. We did not pay the deposit in cash, and it has to be deducted from the amount sued for. Orosssexamined — We go by the engineer's estimate as to the quantity of coal used.- The engine burns 25 tons a week. At the time the contract was entered into, we had two men and myself at work for the first three weeks. Hayter and myself worked together for two weeks, and then, my brother came on. Prentice did complain at the close of the last five weeks that we were not getting out enough coal. He said he could da with more coal, DonJl^ecollecfc that he. complained before tbftj| He may : have complained previousJlsr but I don't recollect, Duriqg the last week he was at me to put on another man. Do not recollect that he complained to me on the 18th June or 21 sfc June. I did till him that we would throw up the contract on the condition named, X told him. that the work would not pay. We applied tQ defendant for money at the expiration of the first fortnight, an<l we were willing to forfeit £5 and 25 per cen,t on, the coal

delivered* Whoa I told Pren.tico we ( would throw up the contract, he did j remind me of the terms of the contract. | We asked him if we should go on as | wages men and he agreed, and we went to work. That night Scoltock and M'Grachey also came to work, I worked six days up to. Wednesday, evening 29th. I know Harry Jackson. He was working in the mine, On the 28th, did not prevent Jackson from going on with his work. Prentice did tell me on the 27th that he would not require me any longer. That evening Prentice said he would keep up to the agreement. He did not refuse to pay us our wages, but we refused to take them, Did not tell anybody that we intended to give up the contract. When Prentice came up on the 28th, we told him that we should not give up possession unless he paid us the percentage. He then took possession of the mine, and we left saying, that was all we wanted. | By the Court— First asked Prentice for payment about three weeks after we commenced the contract. He said it was so small it was not worth giving to us, the amount he said was 3s sd, that was for the two of us for a fortuight, but £5 deposit and the §5 per cent had been deducted. John Aston gave corroborative evidence. John Hayter-r-I estimate that each man employed in the mine put out three tons per day. John Prentice— -I submit a statement of the quantity of coal taken out by plaintiffs for five weeks. The quantity is shown as 138 tons. That is the correct weight made by the engineer, J admit I owe them one weeks wages. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £16 and costs.