MAGISTERIAL.

Patea Mail, Volume IX, Issue 1106, 31 October 1883, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

PATE A—YESTERDAY.

(Befors C. A. Wray, Esq., R.M. CIVIU CASES.

McKenna y Barnes.—Claim L 4 19s IU. Judgment for plaintiff by default for amount claimed with costs 7s. Scown v Taylor.—Claim LI6 14s 6d. Mr Hamerlon for plaintiff, Mr Barton for defendant. This was a claim for wages from February last to the end of June at the rate of 25s,per week. A sett off of L 9 8s had been filed. Phillip Scown the plaintiff said that some time ago he was in Mr Taylor’s service. Mr Tnylor had engaged him as bollock driver at the rate of 25s per week. Mr Taylor found him food, etc. Had 10 work about 10 hours a day. Defendant never disputed the amount of due after witness left him, nor did” he do so as far as witness was aware no till that day. Witness entered info defendant’s service on the 13ih February, and left on the 30th June. Witness remembered the items in the set-off with reference to the ns ° defendant’s bullocks removing plaintiffs father’s house. The work took witness about hours. Mr Taylor never mentioned anything about charging witness for the use of the bullocks. Witness never worked a whole day for bis father

with the bullocks'..' It. was raining on the 'lay in qnosiiori^‘ aim Mr Taylor corild not have worked with the bullocks. Cross-examined ; Witness, knew Mr Monro. Never collected £1 from'him on'behalf of Mr Taylor, Collected £1 for witness' father. W"S not working for Mr Taylor at the time. Mr Taylor once gave witness a bill to collect from Mr Monro but the latter was not at home. Had left one or two loads of wood for Mr Taylor at Mr Monro’s. There was still 5s due on the load of wood witness left for his ■father. During the time witness worked for Mr Taylor he was away one day but he was not working elsewhere. By Mr Ha inert on : The day witness was away from Mr Taylor it was wet and ho allowed witness to go. The day he worked for his father he cbhld not have brought a load to town. By Mr Barton : Had left one load of wood .for his father and about two for Mr Taylor at Mr : Monro’s.

Robert Scown stated he was the brother of-the last Witness. He remembered sometime ago taking a bill to Mr Taylor from witness’s brother. Defendant read it and said ho would do his host to meet it. Some time after witness took another account, and told defendant that his brother wanted it settled that week, but defendant said he could not do it.

Thomas Scown knew Mr Taylor, the defendant. Remembered when his son was working for defendant. Had seen defendant several times since the account were rendered.' Defendant bad never made any objection to paying the money, but he had said it was inconvenient for him to settle the thing. Witness remembered Mr Taylor’s bullocks removing part of In’s bouse ; the work took about two hours. Witness’s son was not employed at home a full day. ills son hud collected money for him from Mr Monro ; 5s was still due.

This was the case for the plaintiff. Thomas Taydor, the defendant, remembered the month of February) when he made arrangements with Mr Scown to engage him as bullock driver. He made arrangements to give plaintiff £1 per week. The man witness had before, he was paying 25s per week, because witness was ill and could not work himself. Witness had several men in bis employment before that, and he had never given them more than £1 per week. Plaintiff bad my bullocks and dray half a day. He bad loaded up in the morning but it began to rain a little. , He then unloaded and went to bis father’s. It was about II o’clock when he started, and be was not home till live or six o’clock in the evening. On a second occasion plaintiff was away a whole day ; 16s is a reasonable charge per day for bullocks and dray. By the Court; They never had any specified agreement as to wages. The Court regretted the absence of any evidence as to a fair rate of wages, there being no agreement in this case, and the statements of plaintiff and defendant being different. ' - Mr W. Williams was called and stated that the rate of wages for bullock drivers varied from about 13s to 35s per week. Some drivers got £2., Aq ordinary driver would get about 255, It appeared to the Court that the plaintiff was entitled to wages amounting to £24 16s, the set-off £9 8s to be deducted which would leave £ls Bs. Judgment was accordingly given for that amount.

Mr Barton asked if the Court would maice an Order for payment by instalments. . Mr Hamerton objected to this as defendant had paid men employed after the plaintiff, who was entirely left out. He subsequently, however, stated that bis client was willing if half the amount were paid, to wait a month for the balance. This was all the business, and the Court then adjourned.