MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2641, 7 September 1881, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

TTMARU—THIS DAY. (Before - E.l Beetham, Esq., E.M.) CIVIL OASES. ; . B. Wallis v. Cot< oa, claim £l2 ss. ' Judgment for plaintiff. ; J. Hughes v. Franks, claim £1 10s. It appeared from the evidence that a cart belonging to defendant was taken by one of his employees to the plaintiff, : to have new shafts put in. The work was done, but defendant denied his -liability, because the cart was^ damaged by.the, man while he'was using it for his own purposes, and not in defendant's business. - ; His Worship pointed out to plaintiff -that he - should have ascertained whether 1 he, man had. authority to get the cart repaired. It was quite wrong to conclude,' fis the plaintiff had done, that because a man had authority to ■ deliver goods and receive money for * them, he also had authority to do any ■such thing as the ordering of woik to be done on. his employer’s account. In every such case it was the tradesman s business to assure himself in some way . that the employer was willing to be responsible, and if he did not do so he must be prepared to loose through his ; carelessness." - Judgment for defendant. Ogilvie unrl Byers v E. Christie and G. Atkinson—Claim, £1 7s 6d. The defendant Christie appeared and proved that, ho was not in partnership with Atkinson, and judgment was given by.default against Atkinson. • Stevens v Edwards —Claim, £6 10s. - Mr Hamersley for plaintiff. Plaintiff stated that she was engaged in Dunedin at a registry office for a month certain, with a'week’s notice if found unsuitable, and expenses from Dunedin paid. ’• After being in her situation two weeks and two days do fondant summarily dismissed her, offering her her merely the wages due for the time she had r been there. She refused to accept that, and now sued for a week’s wages in lieu of notice, and fare from Dunedin in addition. The defence was that plaintiff was dismissed because she was found intoxicated behind the. bar ; a defence met by her assertion that she was not intoxicated but seriously ill, and a medical certificate of the latter. His Worship he'd there was no evi- ■ ’dence of'intoxication, and gave judgement for the amount-claimed and costs. Hamersley v. Hope, claim £2B 13s 2d for legal.expenses. • Mr Hamersley for self: . and Mr White for the defendant. . Judgment for plaintiff with costs, execution to be stayed till the 14th inst. - - 'judgment summons. Young v. Wildermoth, claim £8 16s. Ordered to be paid within one week-, pr in default, 14 days’ imprisonment. .... .Frahklin v. Brien, claim £2 2s ,6d. Ordered to be paid in a week, or in' .default seven days’ imprisonment.