MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2417, 15 December 1880, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMAKU—THIS DAY. [Before R. Beetham, Esq., K.M.. and Messrs J. W. Hall, 11. Belliekl, and E. El worthy, J.P.’s.] civil- casks. Comma v Hope—Claim I*lß 14s. Mr Tosswill for pi a in till:; Mr White for defendant This was a claim for wages. The evidence went to show that last year the defendant agreed with Mr Raird to take over the Railway Hotel at Pleasant Point. Thos. Connon, the plaintilf, was in charge of the hotel for Baird at the time, and it was arranged that he should remain in the house until the defendant obtained a transfer. Plaintiff was according to his own statement receiving £2 odd per week from Raird, and this sum lie continued to charge the defendant while in her service until there was as hejalleged a considerable sum due and he then demanded a settlement as he wanted to leave, and she gave him a bill for £2l and a cheque for £6 in part payment. He was now suing for the balance. The defence wgs that the plaintilf,

who was acting as Baird’s agent at the Hotel, remained in the house until rhe defendant could get a transfer. He was to remain at Baird’s expense for two or three weeks and nothing further was talked about him. He afterwards refused to sign the transfer unlil he got a settlement. In order to get rid ■>f him defendant gave him (he promissory note and the cheque. He had done nothing for her while in the house and. had been frequently away without Jicr permission. She had never got a receipt for the money she paid him. She didn t ask for any because she paid him under protest.’ Before he left he offered to withdraw the bill for £lO and she heard he subsequently endeavored to raise money on it in Christchurch. Never agreed to pay him a penny. She estimated that she had lost £7OO or £BIO by the plaintiff’s conduct.

Mr White urged that the money already obtained by defendant had been obtained under pressure. The cross action was then heard of Hope v Connon—Claim £OB !)s (id for board, tic., and money lent. Judgment was then’givcn in the first case for jdaintiff for £lO Us and costs 245, and in the cross action for plaintiff for £2 without costs.

Gibson v McGeown—lnterpleader summons.

The Bench ordered that the money in Court he paid to the claimant with costs of Court,