RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S EXTENSION

Lyttelton Times, Volume IX, Issue 553, 20 February 1858, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S EXTENSION

COURT. Lyttelton—Tuesday, Feb. 16. The Court opened this morning for its quarterly sitting. 'There^ere sixteen cases, on ...the list, seven of which were fixed for hearing in Christchurch. Those heard were chiefly debt cases. The three first on the list, Peacock v. Archer, Wortley v. Fraser, and Wormald v. Fraser, together with Ford v. Salt, were of this class, and were settled out of Couri. DIMOND V. LINGARD. Action for .£27 12s. lid. for goods supplied and money lent. Debt proved in defendant's absence and judgment given for amount claimed and costs. DKANSFIELD V. COTTON. Debt £23 3s. 6d., for goods sold and delivered. Admitted by letter from defendant, and judgment, given for the amount, with interest and costs. WILSON V. HUGHES. Adjourned for hearing at Christchui'du SAME V. MASON. Action for £59 Is. 9d. on a dishonored acceptance. . Defendant did not appear.. Judgment given for the amount, with interest, £1 3s. Bd., and £6 ■Bs. costs. . BARRELL V. MILLS. This was an action brought by Charles Barrell, late hired servant of Mr. John Mills of Ferrymead, for £100, the amount of wages alleged to be due to him by Mr. Mills, to November 15, 1857. The plaintiff had been for twenty years in the employ of the defendant; but the engagement under which wages was now claimed commenced in January 1856, when Barrell accompanied Mr. Mills's son from Hobart Town as his servant at 30s. per week. Barrell returned to Hobart Town in Sept. of the same year, when the net amount due to him for wages was £40. A fresh engagement, no different terms being specified, commenced in December, 1856, and Barrell returned with Mr. Mills, sen., to New Zealand. Meanwhile, £11 was paid to Barrell on the former account, leaving £29 due. The new ! engagement lasted till Nov. 1857, when Mr. Mills was about to proceed to Otago, Barrell being directed not to accompany him. Plaintiff applied for his wages and received £10, giving a receipt in full of all demands, supposing, as he stated, not being able to read, that he was giving a receipt only for the sum actually paid. The whole amount due, according to the account stated by the plaintiff, was then demanded by him. The demand was rcfvised, and plaintiff kicked out of the house; he soon after commenced the action. Being cross-examined, he admitted that a sum of £10 7s. was due, and hidst likely paid by defendant on his account, for medicine and medical attendance supplied. Mr. Hichens stated the case for the plaintiff, and Mr. Dampier appeared for defendant. Judgment deferred. The Court then adjourned till Friday (yesterday), at Christchurch, when the remaining cases would be brought on.