MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 464, 1 July 1909, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

The monthly sitting of the Magistrate’s Court was held before Mr A. D. Thomson S.M., yesterday. CIVIL CASES. Judgment for plaintiff was entered up in the following undefended cases;—A. E. Shadbolt v. J. Joe, claim £3 gs, costs 2s; Mary Spelraan v, George Towers, £6, costs 23s 6d ; C. H. Collins v. F. G. Thynne, £3 19s 2d, costs ios ; C. H. Collins v. F. Walls £4 2s, costs I os. JUDGMENT SUMMONS.

In the case of Andrew Jonson v. Ernest Dunn, judgment debtor made an offer to pay the amount by instalments of £1 per month and the Magistrate made an order to that effect.

G. T. Woodroofe v. James Walden. Judgment in this case had been obtained two months ago. Judgment debtor gave. evidence as to his earnings for the last ten weeks which had been £22 los. It had taken him all ot this amount to live. His rent was 7s per week and he bad a wife and two children to keep. There had also been sickness in his family during the past two months. The Magistrate made an order for the payment of the amount by instalments of £1 per month, in default three days’ imprisonment, stating that in his opinion, the debtor had had the money to pay the amount since the debt was contracted. In the case of William Ross v. James A. Campbell, plaintiff claimed that the amount in dispute had been obtained by the defendant by fraud. The facts of the case are that defendant, Campbell, and two others were employed by plaintiff as scutchers at his mill, and that on leaving, defendant had received an order from the manager of the mill for the amount of fibre scutched. The order was made out for the full amount scutched and included the amounts due to the two other scutchers. Campbell had signed the receipt for the full amount, but did not pay the other two men their share, although they made application to him for it. Plaintiff therefore had to pay the amount due to these men again.

The defendant, Campbell in evidence stated that he was employed scutching at plaintiff’s mill. He had no authority from his mates to draw their money. On leaving, the manager of the mill gave him an order for his wages. He presented the order to the clerk and received a cheque, and signed the receipt, the receipt only showed the amount of hemp scutched and not the sum of money received. He did not know at the time what amount was due to him. He did not notice what the amount of the cheque was. Changed it at the'Post Office hotel. When he received the change he questioned Mr Gray as to whether he had been given the right amount, as he knew he was not entitled to that amount. Left by train the following morning for Dannevirke. On the following Saturday the other two scutchers came to his house and asked for their share of the money and he told them to go to Ross,

, The Magistrate in giving judgment said that the defendant would have to pay the money to Mr Ross at once. He made qn order for the payment of the amount, £4 l3s forthwith in default four days’ imprisonment. UNION CONTRIBUTIONS. f The Manawatu Flaxmills Employees Union proceeded against Ernest Dunn for the recovery of £1 as 9d being amount of contributions due. For the plaintiff Union,' ,P. T. Robinson, secretary, produced the membership roll, which showed the defendant to be in arrears to the extent of the amount claimed. The defendant stated that in May 1906, he had paid the late secretary of the Union, .Mr Simpson, the amount due by him and had then tendered his resignation as a member.' He had received a letter from Mr Simpson stating J:hat as soon as the resignation was

accepted he would give, him a clearance. , This he had not done, and witness could not now find the. letter referred to. Judgment was given for plaihtlff ‘ for the amount claimed with costs 6s.

A CLAIM FOR FREIGHT. F. E. Chalmers proceeded against R. E. Cresswell to recover the sum of £2 2s 2d being balance due for freights on posts. The plaintiff stated in evidence that in January he was engaged by defendant to take 493 posts from the wharf to his property at Whlrokino. No definite price for the work had been fixed. Had told defendant that he would do the work as reasonably as possible, and estimated that it would cost ij4d or 2d per post. The posts were exceptionally large and very heavy. On February sth, he delivered 237 posts on the river bank where instructed, and on February 10th delivered the balance. The posts were put on the top of the river bank, which necessitated them being double handled. He employed a man to help him load the first lot and paid, him about ss. After lie had completed the work he. rendered the account to deten* dant at 2d per post. He received no reply from the defendant and eventually employed a solicitor to institute legal proceedings. Mr Symons had told him that defendant had said that he considered he had been overcharged and did not intend to pay. Henry Coley staled that he had seen the posts and he had been employed to cart them, he would have charged 2sd each. He considered that 2d each was a fair and reasonable charge for carrying them by steamer.

Wm, Prew stated that he had been employed by plaintiff to assist to load the first lot of posts. They were very heavy and it had taken about five hours. He had been paid 6s for his labour. R. E. Cresswell, defendant, stated that he had got two lots of posts from Foxton. The first lot was purchased from Mr Symons and he had delivered them. The cost of cartage was 12s 6d per 100. The second lot were ordered from Tasmania, through Mr Symons, with whom he had arranged to deliver them. On the arrival of the posts he had received a letter from Mr Symons advising that it would be cheaper to get the posts delivered by steamer. He then saw plaintiff and he offered to deliver them tor 1 each. He considered this price was too high and refused. Plaintiff then said that he would do the work as cheap as anyone else. Then told him to do, the work. As soon as all the posts were delivered witness sent plaintiff 30s in payment which he refused to take. On February 22nd received an account for £4 2s 2d and some days later told Mr Symons that he would not pay it. On receiving a letter from plaintiff’s solicitor, witness paid him £2 which he accepted and gave a receipt on account.

The Magistrate considered that 1 j£d would be a reasonable charge for the work and gave judgment for £1 is 8d with costs 30s.