RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume VIII, Issue 531, 5 December 1857, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

"We are indebted to our contemporary the? -•Standard,' of Thursday, for the following full report of the proceedings in the above Court on Saturday and Monday last. Satubday, Nov. 28. Stoxtt y. Cbawford and Hctchixson.— The plaintiff having amended his pleadings by i alleging that the work done was in pursuance of a contract entered into by him with the defendants, the defendants examined several witnesses to prove that the work contracted for had not been performed, and'that, immediately after the plaintiff had given up tbie premises as beibg completed, the; occupier of the premises . was pbliged ,tp expend a. considerable sum ofmoney in putting the house into Vfenantible" condition. The plaintiff on the other hand afc leged that the putting the dwelling-houge into proper repair was not; a; pa^i£j|w";: contract, which he stated extended .only ;to the shop, the side wing of the buildiri^ and the making a drain in; the back premises. The Court "gave judgment: for plaintifffor £18 145., and directed plaintiff to pay the costs of the adjournment, amounting to £2 10s., and the defendants j to pay all the rest of the costs which amounted to £5 11s. 6d. Reed v. Hood.—This was an action brought by Mr. Charles Reed, of Christchurch, against Mr. John Hood, of Kaiapoi, for recovery of £54 10s. 6d. and interest, under an award of William Sefton Moorhouse, Esq., as arbitrator appointed by the parties. Mr. Gresson appear«d for plaintiff, and Mr. Dampier for defendant. Mr. Moorhouse was examined |by plaintiff to prove the award and the enlargement of the time given for its publication; he was then subjected to a cross-examination by the defend--ant, the scope of which appeared to impeach the award on the, ground of irregularity in the enlargement of the time for making it. The defendant also attempted to elicit further evidence as to the proceedings in making up the award, but the Court ruled that the defendant could not go into matters which were before the arbitrators otherthan as such related to defects patent on the face of the award. After the disposal of *n objection; by the defendant to the wording of the award, the Court gave judgment for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, with 14s. 6d. interest. The Court observed in awarding costs in this case that with a view to discourage such actions it would not observe the minimum assessment of costs. The costs were then fixed at £8 Us. 6d., making a total of £63 16s. 6d. Mr. Dampier, for defendant, gave notice of appeal. The Court said it should require bonds for the payment of judgment and costs of appeal from the defendant and one approved security. Stout v. Webb.-*—This action was brought by J. B. Stout, of Lyttelton, against Mr. Alex. Webb, of Christchnrch Quay, to recover £34 Bs. for value of goods alleged to have been received by defendant to plaintiff's use and not accounted for. Mr. Gresson appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Dampier for defendant. From the plaintiff's evidence it appeared that on the 26th May last, Mr. Miln had delivered to defendant a <raantity of flow and bran consigned to-plaintiff, which were forwarded to him; that plaintiff bad several times applied to defendant for them without effect; that some time in August'de- . iendant sent round by the Waterlily a quantity of flour and bran directed to plaintiff; that plaintiff on finding that neither the quantity,, quality, nor marks of these gooda corresponded with his own, refused to receive them; and that they were in consequence consigned to the stores of the agent of tho vessel, where they remain to' fcia day. There was no eridiuc* called for de- '

la^S*' «? n4g?S was ci» for plaintiff for £20 65.,6 d., and £5 Is. 6d. costs. ! Head v. Bbown. —This was an action brought to recover the sum of £32 9s. lid., balance of wa ges due for the services rendered by plaintiff and his wife after the rate of £60 a-year. Mr. Duncan appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Gresson for the defendant. William daposed—l entered into the service of Mr. Horace. Brown, on the 7th of January, 1857. I was first to go on trial for a month,—-the agreement was made by John Whale on my behalf with Mr. Brown,—the agreement was that I and my wife were to go a month on trial after the rate of £60 a-year There was no other agreement made between us] After the month, expired we continued in Mr] Brown's service, nothing else was said about wages ;—we continued in Mr. Brown's service for 9 months all but one week:-—on the 9th of September Mr. Brown told me that I was not the man he engaged me to be. On that day he asked me to .take ditching by contract, at 14s. a chain : I told him I should not do so; that I was in his service and did not see why he wanted me to work by the lump. On the same morning he said to me outside the door of his house, • Head, it's 7 o'clock'; I said,' Well, that's no late hour.' Mr. Brown said,' The spade does not move any quicker for it.' I said, 'There is no beer.' 'What?' said he. 'No beer,' said I. 'Then you may leave if you like,' said he. After having my breakfast I came out to the dray* and said to him,' Well, Mr. Brown, am I to leave ?' he said ' Yes.' I asked him for my money; he said he would not pay me. I did not leave on that day, on account of his not giving me my money. I continued in his service till the 30th September. Between the 9th and 30th September, Mr. Brown complained that I did not do enough work. On the 30th September my wife came: out and told me that Mr. and Mrs. Brown were abusing her. I went to Mr. Brown and asked what was the matter, Mr. Brown said ' Nothing, and that if I 'chose; I might leave.' I said, 'My * money, sir ?'he said, ' I shan't"pay.' I said, ' Well Mr. Brown this is the third time you have told me to leave your service, now I take you at your word.' I went and got a dray, and : when my goods were put on it I again asked for my money, Mr. Brown again refused to pay, and pushed me out of his house. My wife entered Mr. Brown's service at the same time, —the wages were for the services of both. Cross-examined .—-John Whale made the agreement with me for Mr. Brown. Whale told me the arrangement he had made for me and my wife, which was after the rate of £60 ayear. He did not tell me that Mr. Brown pro-; posed to take me six months at £50 a-year. I did not wish to be engaged for any time longer than a month. Whale said the agreement was if I liked Mr. Brown, and he liked me, I should abide tf twl§K&nl^ not know hffh^to say/aboufc staying "a twelvemonth. I never spoke to him on the subject afterwards. On the Monday after Christmas, day, I and my wife were at the Boyal Hotel; Mr. Brown was there; Mr. Brown wanted me and my wife to go into his service after the rate, of £50 a-year; he did not say for what time, This was all agreed to with Whale on my part. I did not hear a word except what Whale told me (the witness is deaf,) Mr. Brown did not say a word to me. Whale told us he would not let us go under £60; he did not say Mr. Brown wanted us to go for a year, it was only agreed that we were to go on trial. Whale never asked me if I wished to go for a year or six months; I was to do anything there was to do on the farm; my wife was to do household work in doors. I went on very well for seven months, —the grumbling began on the 6th August,—on that day Mr. Brown complained of my wife,.on that I said to Mr. Brown, ' I give you a week's no.tice to leave.' Mr.. Brown said he would not take it; I thought it was proper to give a week's notice, because I was tied for no certain time. I did not leave because Mr. Brown would-not take my notice; he said that Whale had agreed j with him for a twelvemonth. I did not believe that Whale had agreed with him for my services for 12 months. I refused to do the ditching by contract, because I was in his service. Mr. Brown refused to pay me because I would i not stay out my year. I knew then that was his reason. I can't tell why I thought that. I went to Christchurch on Saturday the 26th September, I promised to be back on Sunday evening, my wife was with me. We did not return till Tuesday morning, I did not go to work on that day, I went to bed. Neither of j !us had any gin on that morning. I went to bed | because I was not well. I swear my drinking ; had nothing to do with my going to bed, it was the drinking cold water while I was ditching that made me sick, my wife did not take a I bottle of gin to bed with her. I suppose Mr. j Brown's reason for refusing to pay me on the ! 3rd of September was because I would not bide j a twelvemonth. Mr. Brown never told me so. ■ I did not make any fresh arrangements for j getting other employment before I left Mr. Brown. Examined by the Court—Whale never told me the terms of the agreement, John Whale deposed, that he recommended the plaintiff and his wife to Mr. Brown as servants, to be paid after the rate of £60 a-year which he thought enough on their first coming to the colony. Mr. Brown said he had only been.in the habit of giving £50 ayear. I said they would not come under £60 a-year. He then agreed to give that snm. I communicated what had passed between Mr. Brown and myself to Head on the Saturday weak* following the' Wednesday, on which the plaintiff entered Mr. Brown's service. On that occasion Mr. Brown stated that he did not wish to; b» batter suited, and that he wished a writ-

ten agreement. I Mid that it would be better that they should remain, on trial a month. I never heard about any agreement after that. I frequently saw Mr. Brown after that, and until the question about the fencing arose, when Mr. Brown told him that Head had given him a week's notice to leaves which he (Mr. Brown) refused, to take, saying that he should wait his i time. ;He did not think there was any engagement, but he must say that he (Whale) did intend, when he made the engagement, that it was for a year. When Mr. Brown asked about a written agreement he thought it looked as if he was afraid they might leave him before the year was out. Prom what Mr. Brown said to me, I thought he did not consider the agreement binding for a year. Cross-examined: I told Head that Mr. Brown wanted him for a year. He said he was agreeable to go for a year at the rate of £60, as I had recommended Mr. Brown to him. I ! believe Head intended to stop his year. At the conclusion of this witness's evidence, Mr. Gresson applied-for a non-suit, on the j ground that, no written agreement having been entered into, there was no such contract as would constitute a ground of action. Mr. Duncan, for the Plaintiff, stated that the action was not brought on the contract, but for wages, quantum rneruit,. fov so long as the plaintiff was in the. defendant's service. The Court decided against the application for a non-suit. ""-'- Elizabeth. Head deposed, that on the 30th i September Mr. Brown ordered her away. Her husband in came from ditching.andasked "What was the xovr^ Mr. Browir said "there wag no row, but If he (Head) did not like it he might leave." On 1 which Head said, "thisis thVtbird; time! you have- told me to leave, and now I will leare.'! They did leave. The witness'was subjected to a long crossexamination, .Th which she stated that ■ her washing was in arrears sometimes for five weeks at a time, winch arose in consequence of her bad health. This closed the plaintiff's case. Mr. H. S. Brown deposed,—He engaged the plaintiff's services as a general farm servant, and his wife as an in-door servant. The engagement was made with Whale, who acted for Head. A distinct agreement was made that for £60 a year they were to remain for a year. If it had not been for a twelvemonth, I would not have consented for £60. Mrs; Head was to- do the washing of the house. I had' no ground of dissatisfaction till about? July; then 1 found that he was unable to drive tbe; horses in the thrashing machine, and I had to hire a man to do it fipr 7s. a-day. I should have discharged; them if I had thought I had the power to-do so, but I could not do so as it was an engagement for a year. About the middle of July- I took exception to the quantity of beer drunk ;4Gdgallonß:were brewed every fortnight, and consumed in that time. On the 6th of August I* complained to Mrs. Brown that the room was not swept, which Mrs. Head overheard. She was very insolent at the time, and said that they intended to leave, and would leave. Head said I did not seem satisfied, and he would give me a week's notice. I said I, would not take'his notice, as he wa* engaged for twelve months, and that I wanted my ditching done, -toy crops- being at that time unfenced. When I. refused to take his notice because he r was engaged for twelve months, he said it was only for six months. I asked him why he did not leave at the 6 months; he said he did not know. *I *aid Whale was ,a witness it was a hiring for 12 months; About the 7th of September, I complained of the time he got up. He said he should go. I told him he might go to the devil, if he liked. I did not mean that he had my, authority to go; he seemed half drunk at the time. Mrs. Head had been in Christchurch the day before. What I said was in a moment of irritation.' At the same time. I said that if he left, he would get no wages, as he had engaged for a twelvemonth. On Saturday, the 26th of September, he obtained leave to go to Christchurch, and to stop till Sunday night; his wife went with him; they did not return till Tuesday morning, about daylight. Head did not go to work when he returned; he went to bed; he did no work that day. Mrs. Brown said that Mrs. Head had been in bed all day, arid had provided no dinner. On the next morning Mrs. Brown called me in, and told me that Mrs. Head was using very insulting language to her. I enquired what it was about. Mrs. Brown said she had refused to do the washing, though there was five weeks washing undone. Mrs. Head complained that she had been unwell. Words ensued, and she said she should leave. I told her if she did I should not pay her or her husband any wages. She went and fetched her husband from his work; he came to me; he asked what was the matter. I said his wife could tell him better than I. He then went into the house, and came out again in two or three minutes, and said he should like to leave. I replied that I should like my ditching done; that was all that passed. He went in and packed up his things. and went away. I saw him again in the evening; he asked for his money. I told him I did not know whether I should pay him. They went away in the dray, jeering and laughing. The witness was cross-examined by Mr. Duncan, but no fresh facts were elicited. Mary Anne Brown, wife of the defendant, deposed that it was the understanding that I Mm. Head should do- the washing every fort- i night; the never did it, making sometimes one ' excuse and sometime* another. I complained j of the clothe* not having been washed for five weeks. She said there was no wood, and that [ her ears were bad, and that Dr. Fisher had said I she was not able to wash. It did not appear

to me that she was unable from the state of her health to wash; she frequently told me her plans when their time was up, which she said would be before harvest. She said on the 30th of September that if she could not please she should go, and should make Head go, and that she should put Mr. Brown into Court directly they got down, because he refused to pay their wages; that many servants besides them had left in a huff, and got every farthing of their wages. Mrs. Head generally went to bed from dinner to tea; she made a practice of this from the time she entered my service; she said her mother always did it, and that she should. Her manner was so insolent to me that I was afraid of her. ' <> Cross-examined—The longest interval between the washing was fiv6 weeks. This happened on two occasions, besides the last. On the last occasion she said she would get a woman to wash part of the things. Henry Read sworn,deposed, that the plaintiff had told him that he was sorry he had engaged with Mr. Brown so long as he had for £60 ayear. He understood him to have been enga^ ged for a year. This closed the evidence. The counsel for the several parties then adressed the Court, after which the BesidenMVlagistrate said, a difference of opinion existing in the minds of the Magistrates/the Court had determined to postpone judgment, and refer the point of law raised to the Judge of the Supreme Court, as provided for by the Act. The counsel, however, for both parties stated their desire to have a judgment rather than wait—on which the matter was adjourned till the following Monday. On that day the Court repeated its determination to refer the matter to th 9 Superior Court, to which the counsel, for reasons stated by the Court, gave their assent.