Patea R.M. Court.

Patea Mail, 15 April 1882, Page 2

Patea R.M. Court.

In the Court yesterday afternoon, before Mr Kenaii and Mr Bridge, J.P.V the following additional cases were heard : BREACHES OF BYE-LAWS. ' P. Regan pleaded guilty to furious driving in Patea, and this being the first offence of the kind in the new borough, a light fine of 5s and costs was inflicted. The Bench, intimated that such cases will, bo dealt with more severely. W. Bell, for using abusive language in the main street within hearing of persons, was fined £5 and' costs, or two months’ imprisonment. • T. Collopy, for leaving a horse and cart in public the street not secured by brake, was fined 5s and costs. W. Jackson was fined 5s and costs for allowing a horse to stray. BILLIARDS ON GOOD FRIDAY. W. Qdgers, hotel-keeper, pleaded guilty, to allowing billiards to be -played' in hi| house on Good Friday*. He said he was not aware that it is against the law. Fined 5s and costs ; the ...penalty, to be endorsed on license. • v’ KILLING FOWLS. James Rhodes, bootmaker, was sued by D. DonleyvSteward of Hospital, for the value of a number of fowls killed by & dog belonging to defendant. The fowls had been worried during night or early morning. . . After hearing evidence, the Courtfodndfor the defendant, on the ground that it was not proved the defendant’s dog had done the mischief, there Being a second dog seen near the Hospital about the same time;. • ■ ‘ '" 7 : , DISCHARGING A.SERVANT. 0. McKittrick was sued for balance of wages claimed by a, waiter named. Wright at the Gentral Hotel. Mr Hamerton was for plaintiff and'Mr Barton for-defendant. The hearing lasted a long time. The evidence showed that the waiter had refused to prepare luncheon for a party of ladies who had arrived before the dinnerhour. The waiter alleged he was too bu°y, and Mrs McKittrick' said she would do it herself as he refused. Mr McKittrick heard of. the matter later ;'asked the waiter what-he.-meant by using-“cheek” to the mistress ; and discharged him at once. It appealed that Mr, McKittrick had paid the waiter’s passage front Wellington ; and as the amount had to be worked out, he claimed to deduct it. : The waiter’s claim "was £3 10s for wages due, and £1 10» for wages in lieu of notice, Mr McKittrick had tendered 10s, and claimed to make a deduction for. the waiter’s passage from Wellington.; • The waiter refused, and sued for the full amount. Mr Barton now- asked to be allowed to put in a set-off for the passage money, saying, the- plaintiff was, not aware that the set-off “ought to' have been filed in Court before the day of hearing. The Court would ifbt-allow'the set-off to'be put in after the usual time. After hearing; several witnesses, the Court gave a verdict for £3 10s,; the

amount earned, but refused to allow £1 10a in lieu of notice, as the waiter had misbehaved himself. Costs allowed, 18s, but Mr Hamcrton’s claim for a guinea was not allowed.