RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume I, Issue 59, 21 March 1879, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

FOXTON. Wednesday, Makch 19. (Before R. Ward, Esq., R.M.) CIVIL CASES. J. Bro" wil r. Joseph Sykes— Claim £30 10s Bd, for balance of wages. Mr Staite appeared for plaintiff, and defendant conducted his own ca_e\ James Brown, the plaintiff, deposad -He was a shipwright, and was engaged by defendant at Wellington to work at the saw mill which Was being erected by him for Mr M'Hotfi an the .Manawatu River, near Foxton ; the agreement was that he was to receive 12s a day Wet or dry ; his passage was paid to Foxton ; worked at mill from 9th Oct. to 11th March j some eight or nine days hold been charged for in orror in the amonnt sued foi', during which time he was away in Wellington . had applied fpr tho money to Sykes, who said he would pay on the return of Mr M'Beth ; since then Sykes had denied owing the monej . Uy defendant—Did not agree to come to Foxton with you and fare With yoU in the job ; was ten days off work through a cut on the leg ; knew you had told me there was nothing to do till Mr M'Betk's returnEdmund Turley, a blacksmith, deposed he was working for Sykes ; believed plaintiff had worked the number of days ; was engaged by defendant wet and dry ; had asked for money, but it had been paid since Mr M'Beth's return. By defendant — I understood at first you were to pay me wet and dry, but after you said you would not pay wet and dry; had not heard any thing betweon the plaintiff and defendant as to their agreement. Thomas Rawlinson deposed — He I was an engineer ; in January last was at the mill in conversation with defendant ; afterwards, at dinner, Syke. offered witness employment on the same terms as plaintiff, wet and dry. By Mr Staite — Considered the claim a perfectly reasonable one ; that was the usual custom for skilled workmen to be paid whether wet or dry ; would not work under any other condition himself. Joseph Sykes, being sworn, deposed he had never made any arrangement, a3 stated, to pay wet and dry ; the plaintiff had beenaway from work at Wellington, about 9 days ; and also had beeu off work ten days with a sore leg ; ihere had also been eighteen wet days. Sykes gave a detailed account ot the days worked by plaintiff, lie also stated he had lost money by the job. By Mr Staite —Plaintiff was off work through drink and wet days ; would swear Rawlinson's evidence was uutru* ; witness was never longer than a day from the mill ;he boarded the men, charging them 18s a week By his Worship— There had been eighteen wet days ; would swear he had never made any arrangement to pay Turley wet and dry. Mr Rawlinson, recalled, stated that he had been employed under Government, and had always been paid wet and dry, as also in sickness ; had endeavored to engage a man on Syke's behalf, who was to be paid wet and dry. A. witness named Connor deposed that Rawlinson offered on behalf of Sykos to ongage him and to pay him wot and dry. In answer to the Bonoh, Connor stated that he had been omploy od in sawmills at Pelorus Sound, at 10s por day, wet and dry. This closed the oase. Mr Stuite, iv a lengthy and able speech, iv which he reviewed the evidence, submitted that the ease had beeu fully proved, and that the plaintiff was entitled to the amount olaimed less about 12 days. Hia Worship said ho would give judgment for £18 4s 8d and costs, £8 2s. As Mr Staite had contended thac an employer was liable for wages while his servant was sick, he would look the point up, when, if he was wrong, the judgment would be for au amount less the plaintiff's time wnile siok. Henry Probatt v. J Kennedy — Claim £11 Gs^d on a judgment summons. Defendant pleaded he was a bankrupt, aud the oase was adjourned sine die, USING OBSOBNE LANGUAGE. Juntos M'Giveron was charged with committing tho above offence in the public streets of Foxton on the 17th Maroh. Mr S. M. Baker was called to prove the oharg., whioh was an ag-

-1 gfavatefi one. A number of people, including some children, were about at the time. •— Defendant appeared to have an unlimited amount of confidence in Mr Baker's veracity,as on being asked if it wast true as stated, ho replied — " I expect bo, it must be true if Mr Baker says so ; I know he would say nothing bnt the truth." The Bench inflicted a fine of £1 and costs, 7s, or in default seven days' imprisonment ; intimating to the accused that if he was convicted again of a similar offence, he would reoeive the full penalty the law allowed. .... Tho Court then adjourned