RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Mataura Ensign, Volume 7, Issue 359, 23 May 1884, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

;" "" ;! " "'"■" . MATAUBA. \ „,' - ■■-- • Wbdnbsdat, May 21, 188*. ; (Before H. McCulloch, Esq., B.Mi)

; ' ko 'apphaeancbs. Finlay Mactay - was fined L 3 and costs (8s) for haying an unregistered dog in his possession. .... - :: i / y¥mi Aim- -was also cnarged frith a " similar offence, and fined L 3 and costs t' ! - * :t - *"*■ 'vstxfss%Jti> civil, clsa. » In the following case, there |?eing m r nntp t ■: /appearance defetidant; jndgment went ! by default ;^- J :jlj '-

„ 0. Scul'y v.. unarms Douglas.-r-Claim, L 27 16s 6d, in connection with the : Wantwood contract. Costs, 255, DEFENDED ACTIOKS. J. Andrews v. C. Low.-^Claim, L3O. !Mr Henderson for plaintifE, and Mr I Fletcher for defendant.— PlaintifE dei posed that he had ploughed 60 acres of landj at Wendon for defendant at 10s per acre. Had not measured the ground, but did not believe his estimate of 60 acres, was wide of the mark. — C. Low, the defendant, deposed that his son had, been put in the section at Thet bargain with Andrews was 10s per acre for 50 acres more or less, payment to be made after harvest. Before being summoned, only received a letter from Andrew* claiming L 35, which he considered exorbitant. Had aslced plaintifE to measure the ground, but he refused, saying that he had got enough to satisfy him (meaning, some farm implements that he had removed from the ground). Witness and his sons had carefully measured the ground ploughed, and found its area was 45 acres, which at 10s per acre would warrant payment to the amount of L 22 10s.— Samuel Low gave corroborative evidence. — Judgment for L 22 10s, and L 3 9s costs. S. Low v. Andrews. — This was a claim for the return of various articles removed by defendant from a section at Wendon, of which plaintiff was tenant, or their value, L 33 2s, and LIO damages for thoir detention. —Mr Fletcher for plaintiff, and Mr Henderson for defendant, who admitted having retained possession, pending a settlement of the case just heard, a double furrow ploagh and two shares, swingletrees, two bags, rope, and horsefeeder. It was, however, contended by plaintiff that additional articles were unaccounted for, namely, screw-wrench, blankets, plough reins, four ploughshares and a dray cover. After hearing parties at considerable length; His Worship, made an order for* the return of the articles about which there was no dispute, or their value L 24 2s. Plaintiff was also allowed damages to tne amount of L 5 for the detentionjof the implements, and L 3 7s costs. ! T. Poole v. D. Kellie.— Claim' L' 6 7s f wages, board, damages for illegal dismissal, and value of fat to which plaintiff alleged he was entitled. Mr Johnston for plaintiff and Mr Henderson for defendant.—Evidence was. led for plaintiff, which was to, the effect that when he was on, the point of leaving the hotel recently he was re-engaged by Mrs Kellie on the, understanding that if he was to leave there would b© a week's notice ; failing that, a week's wages. That notice had not been given! ' The existence of any such agreement was denied by the defendant, who paid 35s into Court in full satisfaction of all claims and led evidence as to the general inability of the cook. Judgment was given for plaintiff for L 4 10s and L 2 \b costs.