MAGISTERIAL.

Patea Mail, Volume VIII, Issue 1012, 21 March 1883, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

PATEA—-YESTERDAY* (Before O. A. Wray, Esq., R.M.) MAINTENANCE ORDER. Kate Plummer applied for an order compelling her husband, Robert Plummer, to provide for her maintenance. Defendant was called but did not appear. The plaintiff stated; My husband’s name is Robert Plummer and I lived in: Patea with him till February 8, when he went to Wanganui. On that date I was earning f, my living at the Patea hotel, but I had to leave my situation on Monday week on account of the state of my health. I have communicated with my husband two or three times since be went away. In a letter about the beginning of March I told him I was unable to work. He replied- but did not send me any assistance., I wrote to him again about the middle of March and :cceiv,ed a reply that he wanted Ida money to get clothes. Last week I again wrote to him and got an answer yesterday in which he asked me to withdraw the summons and sent me a Post Office order fur 30s. I understand he has been getting £1 per week. Sergeant Donovan applied for permission to allow the case to stand over for a few days in order that the police in Wanganui might be communicated with so that they might ascertain the amount of wages the defendant was getting. The adjournment was according granted.

Barker v. King. Mr Hamerton for plaintiff ; Mr Barton, who appeared for Mr Samuels for defendant. His Worship now gave judgment in this case which had been adjourned from the 13th inst, for plaintiff for L 92 and costs. Mr Barton gave notice of appeal. Lundberg & Co. v. Winch. —Claim, £9. Mr Barton for plaintiffs ;Mr Hamerton for defendant.

Mr Barton, in staling his case, said that a short while since defendant had sued plaintiff for wages. Mr Lundberg confessed judgment, but had a setoff for which he brought (ho present action. All witnesses in the case were ordered out of Court, and Mr Barton called—

Henry Lundborg, who said ; I am n partner in the firm of Lundborg and Co. Defendant was in my servicers cabinetmaker. Ho enmo so mb time in January, 1882. About October last I gave him an order to make some blinds, giving him the width, 2 feet 10£ inches—the length he had nothing to do with—on a piece of paper. The order was from Mr Gibson for 12 sets of Venetian blinds. The width is nn unusually narrow one. There is not a ready sale in Patoa for Venetian blinds of any sort, much loss for such narrow ones.' The next morning after the blinds had boon delivered, Mr Gibson came down to the shop and said they wore only 2 foot 8 inches wide. .1 said at once .that' they wore the right widthi when Mr Gibson told mb to come up to his place and'see for myself, which I did, and found wliat ho had stated to bo the case. When 1 went hack to the shop I asked Winch how ho managed to make such a mistake. He agreed that as Mr Gibson would net take the blinds, I was to sell them for what they would fetch, and ho would pay mo the balance. Ho remained in mv service after that. Ho left bn the Oth of this month. I complained to_ my partner about nn unfinished choffouior Which had made, and they bad some words about it and Winch loft. I have soon him several times frequently. When ho came in for his wages 1 asked him what allowance ho would make mo lor the blinds, but ho refusftd to make any. J have tried to soil the blinds, but could not get any offer for them ; they are simply dead stock. Defendant has frequently made bad Jobs, on one occasion making a table for Mr Gibson wrong. Cross-examined : Ho has been in my service fourteen or fifteen months. The table ho spoiled was made in August last, before the blinds. I did not make any. claim against lijtq for the‘fable. I kept him on in my service because { did not wish to be hard on him. I gave him a slip of paper on which was written I will not swear that the top rail of the blind was not 2ft 10£ inches wide. I have paid wages to, and settled up with defendant after this. He assisted to make blinds for the Bank of Australasia. J had boys papering the blinds, down. My partner, Mr Mooney, worked in the same room as defendant, and is master of the men. Mr Mooney supervises the work.

I am in the room several times every day. The blinds are quite unsaleable. They have been fitted up, ready for sale, only about a fortnight. I have articles in my shop that I have had there for fifteen months. There was no one present when defendant said he wouldn’t pay mo for the blinds. When I paid him I offered to take £2 2s, the half of his wages, in settlement. Defendant is not a skilled labourer; I gave him 8s per day. He came to me as a skilled labourer. He did not ask 9s per day, I was trying to sell the blinds for ids benefit, but ho gave me no authority to do so. While he was working on the blinds he came down to me, and asked me if they were not very small and I said “ Make them according" to the measurement on the paper I gave3 T ou. The first time I spoke to him about them ho said ho made them according to my order. By Mr Barton. The blinds were in the condition before the last fortnight that blinds usually are in when offered for sale, that is, they were not threaded. The man is not a skilled labourer, but came to me as such, that meant that he could take up any job. The constructing of blinds is part of cabinotmakiug work. When a man is given an order to make blinds he is simply given the length of lath. By the Court : I discovered the man was not a skilled labourer from the very first.

Examination continued : It is not the habit of foremen to measure work. The goneral custom is to give the workman an order on a slate or piece of paper and let him carry the instructions out. No man would stand having his work measured. The foreman’s duty is to supervise the men and see they go on with their work. Patrick Mooney : I am a partner of Mr Lnndberg’s. I remember defendant making some Venetian blinds in October or November. lam supposed to see that all work is done up ready for sale. It is not part of my duty to measure the men’s work. A foreman is supposed to give the men the size of their work. Defendant said he would make up the balance in the loss on the blinds, if they were sold. Cross-examined ; I have often had to show defendant how to do his work on account of his inability. I have been in the trade 14 years. In large places Venetion blind making is a trade by itself. I was in the room with the man .when he was making the blinds. I did not direct him beyond telling him to clean them up. I did not seethe instructions he got on paper. I did not say to him “ why did’nt you get the size in writing.” One of the apprentices was with me when he said he would pay for the blinds Alexander Heron, said: I am an upholsterer working at_ pi an tiff’s shop.- I have occupied the position of foreman, but not in Patea. My duty was to see that work was done properly. The practice in giving men a job is to give them the size on a giece of paper. I saw the directions which were given to defendant, but I did not see him receive them. I saw them on a nail over his bench afterwards. The width was 2ft. 10J inches. Cross-examined : I will not swear that the length was written on the paper. Venetian blind making is generally recognised as a trade by itself. I would not consider it a pardonable offence to make such a mistake as defendant’s. It is generally understood that the measurement given is the width of lath. These were the first Venetian blinds defendant worked on.

Henry Blandford : I am an apprentice employed in the plaintiff’s shop. Iremember Winch state to Mr Mooney that he would pay the balance of the loss on the blinds.

Cross-examined : The conversation took place in the workshop upstairs. I have been employed in the shop since the 6th of November. Mr Mooney said the blinds were of an unsaleable size. He ? was always complaining about Winch making bad jobs. This was the esse for the plaintiff. After counsel on both sides had addressed the Court Mr Ha inert on called C. Winch, who stated : I am a cabinetmaker, and was with the plaintiff for about 15 months. Mr Lundberg gave me verbally the size of the blinds. I did not get any instructions on paper. When I had cut a few laths, not being satisfied with regard to the length, I went downand asked Mr Lundberg if they were Vight. He measured them and said they were. Mooney was working in the same room. He never said anything to me about the blinds. Mr Lundberg often looked at them, but never took any objection ; to them. I, in company with Mr Heron, took the blinds to Mr Gibson’s. I did not stay to fix them up. Mr Lundberg never claimed £9 from me till I got the summons, .which was after I sued him. Cross-examined : Mr Lundberg told me that I should allow him something for the blinds, and I agreed to work overtime. Some timo after ho told me in the office that ho was satisfied. No one was present when ho said that. lam a cabinetmaker. I learned my trade in New York. Mr Lundberg never gave me any written instructions with regard to the blinds. Alexander Heron, recalled : I saw Mr Lundberg write the instructions, and I saw thorn over Mr Winch’s bench. I never mentioned anything about them to defendant. Cross-examined : I wont with the blinds to Gibson’s ; defendant was with mo, hut ho was not there when I fitted them up. Mrs Gibson did not say to mo she would not take the blinds on account of the paint. This was the case for, the defence. Judgment was given for* plaintiff for £3, and costs £‘2 16s. Bicicuk y. FiiicisxwoOD.— Mr II amort on for plaintiff, Mr Barton for defendant. Judgment was given in this case, which had boon adjourned from a previous Court day, for plaintiff for £l2 13s, with costs £2. A case, William Aitohison and R. A. Adams v. William Dale, was adjourned.