Local Intelligence.

Lyttelton Times, Volume VII, Issue 449, 21 February 1857, Page 6

Local Intelligence.

■ RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LYTTELTON. The first sitting of this Court for the hearing of cakes under the Act. for the extension of the Resident Magistrates' jurisdiction, was held on Tuesday morning last at the Town Hall. There was a full attendance on the part of the public. At the opening ofthe court, the Resident explained the practice which was to be adopted in proceeding under that Ordinance. The first case which was heard was one of much importance to masters and servants. ' WATLING V.EEED. The action in this case was instituted by Mr. John Hodgson Watling against Mr. Charles Reed, of Christchurch, for wages due to plaintiff and his wife as farm servants, under an agreement dated sth of June, 1856, and for damages claimed for their wrongful dismissal _ from defendant's'enjoyment, &c, and for their expenses, amounting in the whole to a sum of £99 2s. The case was tried by a jury ; and

as its details were clearly and concisely stated in the Eesident Magistate's charge to the jury, we give a full extract of the charge^ In summing up the evidence, which Was very lengthy, and occupied the whole of Tuesday to a late 5 hour in the evening, the Court began hy reading the agreement before mentioned, which fonnecfthe basis, of the. action, and dwelling on it's most important points. In pursuance of that agreement the i>laintiff and_ his wife proceeded with defendant £6 his station. The sheep were delivered into plaintiff's charge, but they were not counted out to him. Defendant then left and went to Christchurch, and in a few weeks returned to the station, having in the mean time made arrangements with a Mr. Meldrum, who held an" adjoining station called Culverton to take his sheep on terms. The sheep were mustered and counted over to Mr. Meldrum, when the defendant complained that there were about 30 missing. At this time the plaintiff's wife was taken ill, and the plaintiff applied to the defendant for a horse to go for medical aid; this the defendant refused, stating that he had but one horse,, on which he had to travel several hundred miles. Defendant left for Nelson on the 6th of August, having first ordered plaintiff to dig np a garden and sheep yard near the hue occupied by Mr. Bryant. On this subject there was a positive contradiction in the evidence, the plaintiff asserting that he was ordered to do this work when he had taken possession of the hut, after Bryant had left it; which was positively denied by the defendant, who asserted that he directed plaintiff to do the work at once. After Mr. Seed's departure for Nelson, Mrs. "Watling had a miscarriage; plaintiff sent to Culverton, to Mr. Mathews who was in charge of that station, for some comforts for his wife; he was sent two pies and a fowl. Subsequently plaintiff applied to Mathews for rations, who informed him that they would be regularly sent to him if he worked, but that he could not have his men taking rations to idle men. On the day: of Mr. Eeed's return from Nelson, plaintiff agreed with Mr. Mathews to work or him on his own account. - On Mr. Reed's return from Nelson, on the 26th of Sept., he found that the work which he had ordered plaintiff to do was not done. Watling accounted for this by saying he was attending his wife in her illness, and fetching firewood and rations. Defendant was dissatisfied with this explanation, and by his observations to plaintiff appeared to consiclerhis contract with him at an' end. The last step taken in the matter was a letter written to defendant by plaintiff's Solicitor, dated 22nd November, 1856j tendering his services, and threatening proceedings for damages against the defendant in the Supreme Court, in the event of non-compliance. Defendant did not comply with the demafnd. The plaintiff now asks either damages for breach of contract, or a reasonable remuneration for his services. The court would take the second demand first, and give its reasons for considering that it could not be sustained. There could be no implied contract of later date; the plaintiff must stand on his written contract and on that alone. As to the point raised by plaintiff's solicitor that defendant broke his contract by selling his sheep to Mr. Meldrum, the Court thinks nothing of it; it refers to the agreement. Nothing is there said as to plaintiff's being employed about sheep* but as a general farm servant, and on the station; plaintiff was told to dig up a yard, which was ordinary station work. The claim then under that contract is, that defendant put an end to it without sufficient cause. The Court thinks the observation of the defendant to the plaintiff at the station, on the 25th Sept., amounted to a dismissal. Now assuming that defendant put an end to the contract on, this occasion, was he justified in doing so ? Defendant has set up three reasons in justification. First, plaintiff's neglect in shepherding thesheep. ■ (The Court here read defendant's evidence on the subject of his handing over his sheep to plaintiff.) The jury should consider whetherthere was sufficient evidence of neglect. It is impossible in a flock of 1,600 sheep to say precisely whether there were 30 more or less. The next point is as to plaintiff's neglecting to dig°up the yards. (The Court here read evidence of both plaintiff and defendant on that subject.) Neglect in obeying was sufficient' for breach of contract; direct refusal was not necessary. In cases of conflicting testimony like the present, the Court would look through all the evidence for inference to show what really did take place. (Evidence of plaintiff, defendant

and Matthews, read). The jury should decide whose ((evidence was to have credit. Supposing defendant told plaintiff to dig the yards at once, the jury should then consider whether it was a reasonable order, the yards being 3 miles distant'from his own hut, and taking also into account the illness of plaintiff's wife. Another ground.for dismissal of plaintiff was that he did not dig up a yard near his own hut, which it appeared in evidence he was ordered to do. The jury should consider whether plaintiff neglected his orders in this instance, and, if so,was it sufficient neglect to justify his dismissal. If the jury think these offences were not sufficient, they will then consider the amount of damages to which plaintiff is entitled. To claim wages for the whole year plaintiff must show his" readiness to complete the contract; he, however, had hired himself to three persons, which act I was in itself a breach of the contract. The jury should take that into consideration. The plaintiff claims for insufficient rations ; by his own letter to Mathews he says he was referred to him for rations. He must shew that it was not'his own fault that he did not receive them. Plaintiff also claims for rations which he bought from Mr. Hanmer; the jury should consider whether he could not have got them without having purchased them, Plaintiff claims for insufficient accommodation; the jury should consider if tjiere was any evidence to support that claim. He claims also for cost of outfit; if improperly dismissed, outfit is a proper charge. The Court does not mean by what has been said to indicate its opinion whether or not the dismissal was improper. It is for the jury to determine whether, under the circumstances, defendant had sufficient grounds for dismissing plaintiff. If they should consider 'that he had. they will find for defendant; if not, they will find for plaintiff, and consider the amount of damages. They will take into consideration all the circumstances pointed out to them, and also the quality of plaintiff's services. The Court concluded its charge by referring the jury to the "Resident Magistrate's Court Ordinance," to remind them that they were to give such a verdict as they should find to stand with the equity and conscience of the case. The jury, after retiring for a short time, returned a verdict for plaintiff, for £25 16s. Bd. and the court, after a short argument between counsel oh both sides, ordered that the costs should go with the verdict. Counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Dam pier; for the Defendant, Mr. Gresson. The other cases heard were, for the most part, .devoid of interest, the only one of them we notice is a case of WEIGHT V. MOOEE. This was an action brought by a carpenter named Frederick Wright, against Dr. Moore of Charteris bay, for the recovery of the balance of wages due to him for work done by him on Dr. Moore's farm. Dr. Moore attended, and objected to the account furnishe dby the plaintiff, partly on the ground that he had given the plaintiff express notice that one third of the payment for work done on the farm (except some particular work which he mentioned) should be borne by a man named Fawcit, Dr. Moore's overseer, and partly because on several of the days stated in plaintiff's account plaintiff was away with other parties pig hunting, but as in the evidence plaintiff denied having received the notice Dr. Moore mentioned, and also stated that he went pig hunting by Dr. Moore's directions, the court disallowed the defendant's objections, and gave judgment for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed and costs. The greater number of cases entered for hearing during this sitting were settled out of court.

The Heathcote River. —This stream is at present^ inconstant use as a highway. At the Ferry and the Quay cargoes are constantly arriving and despatched, and great hustle prevails on all hands. Lingard's Whaif, near the first bridge towards Christchurch, is well occupied as a place of reception of metal for the road, and several carts and drays are working in connection with it. Higher up the river towards the Quay, a new jetty and store are in course of building, which are intended to be employed, we understand, chiefly in the timber trade, in connection with the schooner Ocean Queen for the convej^ance from Akaroa and the bays. A large schooner, the Lucy James, 32 tons, lately arrived from Auckland, was taken up as far as the Quay, and has there discharged the largest load of timber that has ever

been taken at once to that spot. Timber, we are told, is. easily, disposed of at fair prices. In the matter of outward cargoes^ wool is the largest article of export; there are also small quantities' of .wheat. Drays from the stations are constantly corning down to both shipping places in the river, and boats ai-e arriving and departing as frequently as the wind and tide will permit them. The difficulties which stood in the way.of shipment in previous years have not been so much felt this season, the boating power being largely increased and the storeage room considerably enlarged. There are also no heavy shipments of agricultural produce to compete for shipment with the wool, as was previously the case. The road also is in good order, and so far all things are going smoothly. We notice two large shipments from the river during the last*week. The Eclair, schooner, came round on Sunday morning last, and went alongside the Oliver Lang the following day to discharge a cargo of wool valued at nearly £1000. At the same* time the Lucy James was ready for departure from the ferry, having sixty bales of wool on board, which, with other cargo, wheat, &c, reached to the value of £1,400. These two vessels have lately arrived in the settlem nt, and are canying freights of considerably greater amount than any of the regular river craft do. We regret to hear that a difficulty arose as to the pilotage of these vessels in the river, a dimcult course for a stranger. Men from the other boats were found to take them up, but we understand that, finding the vessels in question were loading for return, they refused unanimously to take them down again. We must call this unwise conduct on the part of the boatmen in question, if true. Just at this time, when severe competition may be expected, it is surely foolish to adopt a line of conduct calculated to annoy and disgust shippers andthepublic. Such acts as these will leave no opening for regret at the destruction of the boating interest by the proposed coasting; steam service, if such a thing should ever come to pass. We think our friends, the boatmen, if they are wise in their generation will do all they can to accommodate one another and the public, so that we may feel the need "of alteration as little as. possible. At the same time, it strikes us tha+. the pilotage in this river need not be left to s'iich chances. An additional hand in the harbourmaster's crew in port would: be amply sufficient to discharge these duties, better than they are done on the voluntary. system, and at much smaller charge to the veasels requiring aid, while this charge would almost or quite meet the additional expense, and the services of the additional hand would often be required on emergencies in the harbour service, itself. We throw out this hint for consideration in the proper quarter. Such cargoes as we have reported, above are not to be carlessly risked, and when our trade increases, we must, of course, expect losses to occur among them if no improvement is attempted. The Peogeess of Canterbioiy.—"A letter addressed to Joseph Thomas Esq., &c," by Mr. R. Waitt, London, 1856, has a very appropriate title. Though not calculated to enlighten residents in this country very much, and perhaps not very intelligible to an uninstructed stranger, still to any one who, having seen Canterbury in its embyro state, retains a perfect recollection of it after years of. absence, this small publication would be the very thing to satisfy him. The style is eminently epistolary ; the statement of facts is made with an unembarrassed ease which shows that the writer is confident of the belief of his friend: so much so that many x readers might feel inclined to doubt the correctness of statistics apparently so unstudied. There is no puffing, however, in this little book, and we cannot find that Mr. Waitt's evident partiality for the land of his adoption has even betrayed him into colouring the bright parts of his picture too highly. So far as we are able to test them, his statements perfectly accord with the facts as they were at the date of his report. The little book in short is a simple and amusing account of the country to one who had known it a long time before in a different state.