RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4463, 9 July 1875, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, July S. (Before J. C. Crawford, Esq., K.M.) DRUNKENNESS. Maxwell Smith, who was charged with this offence, had been found lying in a dangerous position on the wharf. He was fined 55., with the alternative of twenty-four hours’ imprisonment. Martin Vasey, for being drunk and disorderly at the Hutt, on Wednesday last, was let off with a fine of os., with the usual alternative, as he had not been before the Court for some time. LUNACY. George Parris was brought up on remand, charged with being of unsound mind. Mr. 'Buckley appeared for the wife of accused. It transpired that accused was given in custody by his wife. He had been a Good Templar for some time, but had broken out on a “spree,” from the effects of which he was suffering when arrested. He had quite recovered, and promised to become a teetotaller .once more. Sir. Buckley said his client had desired a protection order, but as the prisoner had promised amendment, he would not press for it. TTis Worship stated that the man was charged with being of unsound mind, and as he was now all right, there remained nothing for him to do but to discharge the prisoner. QUESTION OP JURISDICTION. J. Martin v. M. Landstain.—Claim, £42 Ss., for the purchase money of land sold by auction at Christchurch, in July, 1869. Mr. Travers, who was Mr. Martin’s solicitor at the time of the sale,, appeared for the plaintiff ;: Mr. Izard for the defendant. Mr. Travers, as witness, deposed that he was in Christchurch at the tune of the sale. Defendant knew that he (witness) resided in Wellington, and carried on business here. It was also known to the defendant that Mr. Martin lived in Wellington. He had never received the purchase money, and had been favored with no replies to Ms applications for it. His friend was about to raise the objection that the contract did not come under his WorsMp’s jurisdiction. The office of the solicitors was invariably the place for the completion of the purchase. Examined by Mr. Izard: The purchase was made at Christchurch. The auctioneer signed the contract. Mr. Hart, solicitor, was then called, and was examined by Mr. Travers. The office of the vendor was the proper place to complete the purchase. This would be the rule in the absence of any expressed stipulation. Examined by Mr. Izard: TMs would be the rule if the purchaser resided in one province and the vendor in another, provided the purchaser was aware of that fact. Mr. Brandon, solicitor, was then called. He had heard the evidence given by Mr. Hart, and quite agreed with him. Mr. Izard said that it was quite clear the case did not come under the jurisdiction of the Court, as the cause of action had arisen in another province. Mr. Travers said the cause of action was simply the non-payment of the purchase money. This had arisen in Wellington. The money was to have been paid oh the Ist of July, 1869 —six years ago. It was here the contract was broken. His Worship would take time to consider the point raised, and would adjourn the case till Tuesday. WRONGFUL DISMISSAL. ' Sample v. McLean—Claim £2B, in lieu of proper notice. Mr. Allan appeared for plaintiff ; Mr. Travers for defendant. Mr. Sample was employed by Mr. McLean, draper, at a salary of £l3 per month, which had been subsequently raised to £l4. On the morning of June 4 he was dressing the doors and outside of the shop, when defendant came to him and requested him to make some alteration in his work. An altercation ensued, wMch ended in defendant ordering plaintiff to quit the shop. In cross-examination, plaintiff said he had had fourteen years experience in his work, and was doing it properly. He was efficient, and had not been dismissed by Edmondson and Sellar for inefficiency. He was not “ cheeky” to defendant, and had always kept good time in the morning; he had not always been half-an-hour late. Mr. McLean had not given him a month’s notice in the middle of May. Mr. McLean deposed that plaintiff had been in his employment, but not being satisfied with him, he gave him notice to leave about the middle of May. He stopped till 4th June. He was told to make some alteration in the dressing of the door, but refused, stating he would do it his own way or none, and became very insolent. It was the custom of the trade to discharge at a moment’s notice for misconduct, and defendant discharged him at once, offering him four days’ wages, which was refused. Mr. Stains, of Messrs. Kirkcaldie and Stains, was*called, and stated thatin their establishment they generally gave a week’s notice merely out of courtesy, as it was the rule in the trade if a man did not suit to dismiss at a moment’s notice. Mr. McDowell also gave evidence as to the custom of trade, stating that, strictly speaking, there was no general custom. In his house, the rule was to give those paid weekly a week's notice, and those paid monthly a month’s notice. ■Mr. Sellar, a wholesale draper, gave evidence to the same effect. Plaintiff had been in witness’s service, but was dismissed because he was inefficient. Mr. Allan produced a letter in which the firm informed plaintiff they must dispense with his services because business was slack, and stating it would give" them much pleasure to give Mm a reference. David Waters,: a boy in the employ of the defendant, said he heard Mr, McLean on the morning of the 4th of June tell Mr. Sample to make some alterations in his work, who stated

he would do it his own way or not at all. Mr. McLean offered the plaintiff four days’ wages, which he refused. , His Worship did not think the defendant s case as to the custom of the trade had been made out It would be a great hardship if drapers’ assistants could be turned away at a moment’s notice. He did not think the case hinged mainly upon the charge of disobedience ; at any rate the disobedience bad not been shown to be such as to justify instant dismissal. Of course it would be very inconvenient if drapers, or any other employers, could not get their orders obeyed, and loss to their business was likely to occur if they had useless assistants and were unable to get rid of them without a month's notice. At the same time, the line must be drawn somewhere. In a case like this, it would not be right to dismiss the plaintiff at a moment’s notice. He thought there was ho reason to doubt but that in the middle of May a month’s notice had been given; that notice would have a fortnight to run.. He would, therefore, give a verdict for £7, with costs.