RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4350, 27 February 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Friday, February 26. (Before J. 0. Crawford, Esq., E.M.) A charge against an old man named John Miller, for stealing an axe, was dismissed. The prisoner had been under remand since .Tuesday last. CIVIL CASES. George Petherick v. Henry Simpson.—Claim, £3 125., for six days’labor, at 12s. per day. The plaintiff, who is a carpenter and joiner, stated that he was engaged by defendant to assist in finishing the construction of a cottage belonging to Mr. Munro., At the end of the first week, he received his wages at the rate of 12s. per day ; but, on the following Saturday, the wages were not forthcoming, and he accordingly ceased work. There was no partnership entered into between defendant and himself ; he was simply a workman. The plaintiff called a witness named George Hancock, who deposed to being present when defendant engaged plaintiff at the rate of wages named ; and he was of opinion there was no partnership. The defendant, on being sworn, stated that he and the plaintiff had together inspected the work to be performed, and they mutually agreed to undertake the job as partners. They were to receive £l9. Petherick had received the money from the owner of the cottage, which amounted to £l2 10s., and which was divided, a laborer receiving £3, the remaining £9 10s. being equally divided between Petherick and himself. A_ difficulty arising concerning some extras, induced them to relinquish the job. Mr. Munro, the owner of the cottage, bore out the evidence given by plaintiff. Simpson had undertaken the work, and he had always paid him. He once gave him 305., and on another occasion £lO 10s. On Simpson requesting the balance of the amount of the contract before the work was finished, he refused to pay it, whereupon defendant threatened to retain the key of the cottage. He, however, subsequently left it at Mr. Munro’s store. The witness knew of no partnership existing between plaintiff and defendant. His Worship, in giving judgment, remarked upon the disparity and conflicting nature of the evidence. But he considered there could be no doubt that no partnership had existed. Besides, defendant had stated that on one occasion £l2 1 Os. was paid over by Mr. Munro to plaintiff, whereas that gentleman had as distinctly asserted that at one time he had paid defendant 305., and on another £lO 10s. Defendant out of the latter sum could not possibly have paid to a laborer £3, and divided £9 between Petherick and himself. The thing could not be done. ■ Judgment would be for plaintiff with costs. There were two other unimportant civil cases. -