RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Southland Times, Volume I, Issue 48, 20 September 1864, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Saturday, 17th September, 1864. (Before H. M'Culloch, E.M.) One drunkard wai fined in the usual penalty of ss. 19th September, 1864. Joseph Thornton, for being drunk, was. fined 6s. Archibald Wilson and William Davidson were charged with desertion from the ship " Sevilla," at Campbelltown, on the llth inst. They wer» remanded to the Bluff. Civil Cases, pasco v. m'neil and wilson. Mr. Macdonald for plaintiff; Mr. Harvey for defendants. An adjournment was obtained by Mr. Harvey, to file defences, until the following morning. 8. M. SOUTH V. D. MUXBO, AND D. MUNEO T. SOUTH. Mr. Macdonald appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. . Harvey fbr the defendant. In the first ease, Mr. South sued for a balance of £95, due him on various bills of costs. These actions proceeded no further, Mr. Harvey having applied for a remand till Wednesday for the taxation of Mr. Souths accounts. CAVANAOH V. KEVALEON. Claim for £4 9s. 6d., being balance due on a bagatelle table sold to defend*nt. Mr. Mendoza deposed to selling the table at auctiou to defendant for £7 10s. He read over the conditions of sale, in which the re-sale of any article (which was not removed) was adverted to. The notice of such re-sale was given to defendant. The table was re-sold at £3 10s., and the incidental expenses amounted to 19». 6d., making ia | all £4 9s. 6d. The defendant stated that the table and appurtenances were not complete. Mr. Mendoza said defendant had every opportunity of judging as to the' state of the table, both previous to and at the time of sale. Verdict for amouut. LOWE V. BROWN AND ANOTHBH. .";''. Mr. Button appeared; for plaintiff; Mr. S. M. . South appeared for the defendant Brown. : ; . Tliis was a claim for attendance on cattle, at the request of Mr. Grieve, one of the defendants. 1 Plaintiff claimed £17 Is., and stated that no dissatisfaction had, at the. time of sending in hia. . bill, been manifested by either of the defendants.. ; He had beeii told by Mr. Brown to look after the cattle. There were about 70r yThejr were all - - accounted for, witli the exception - of, six;, -which Yj; strayed while he had been' absent for the purpose i of getting provisions. He did not lose the cattle: . Cross-examined:-- -1 was to have 303:.:a;-week..r--;-This sura was not exactly mentioned at the first time I agreed to "tail.the cattle.". . J jigreed i with Mr. Grieve to have~" 30s. a. week, . with ration* found. Mr. Brown aJEfeiWr-ds'a^eed.tb pay ma ,V the half of what Mr. Grieve hadagreed. on; The .six - cattle.- which strayed haye 'never been recovered- - I took .'aU'po.ssible care oi them. iyly^'6ne;mghi l - - andtwo days in thFshow titt^^ was allowed to shoot ducks Tor my" grub." I, on two~occasionsrwent .to Winton-to-selLscmi&.ducka^ on my own account.-- '-'(Hie cattle 'wererperfectly safe then.^ .I.was.shooting the 'ducks in the vicinity of •the cattlo. T* never left , themjbutf; whenlLwenty ■ for rations:- Yl waa i ten miles from ,itaj%pla<>eiw}»er-» Ji_ the§e ;J could he prbeuredi ;M*-.(Meve'9 M& Mr/ Brown were to send the rations to me.^ Mr. 'o Grieves did his part- weUy Mr. Brown did not I lived one; week- entirely on ducks, else I should Yhave starved; I had instructions to go itp ■;*> store f-at-lime Hilla foejationfc : J^ent^^ffln^.; accordingly. lam charged, fpr them, and hay* paid„forthem. _ A. A ".-."A ■-■■■■; : ■ aA " 'iz. m IMr. "Lockhart^^ G«eVe, .one HAth'^'aefeffaaiitsr deposed to the .^e l oni6hfr"miadkbetw:een Brown ahcLhiTtL:and.^ to leave tEe rafe '6f .-srag^'tff ourse.lyeßr--'Pl^pv *'t(j^wMcis''Sisa his'-vbgea at SOsAe^yk i JS6^ A to cms. •- • -z r _ . Chx»s-*«ijuiiw&— Since Lowe Wt tw 1 VW»

the agreement with him for 30s. per week. I don't think .it strange. that_L should have made the agreement after, ho .left. . I have paid Lowe his account against; me. It was partly in money and partly with provisions supplied while ho stayed in a tent close to my place. When he was away with the cattle he had no permission to go away "duck shooting," He was the principal part of time with the caitle. - 'y i Re-examined — I consider 30§. a week a fair and reasonable charge. , . . This was the case for the plaintiff. Mr. South opened the case for the defence, and called ■". . ,■'. ...... Mr. Brown deposed to the plaintiff being engaged for a few weeks to " tail the cattle. There was no sum mentioned at the time we saw Lowe, , I used to pay 20s. a week. I did not think it would be more. I never made any agreement with Lowe for 30s. a week previous to his leaving. Lowe,' in tending these cattle had not a man's work to perform, and I would never have agreed to pay 30s. a week. I think 20s. a week a fair l wage for him. About a week previous to 24th of i June I told him I did not require his services further. Mr. South did not call any further witnesses. He contended thafc Mr. Brown was nofc bound to pay 80s. a week, because Mr. Grieve had chosen to pay Lowe afc that rate, and he had not apprised him (Brown) of this. The loss of the six cattle would be sufficient as a sett-off. Mr. Button contended that the partnership existing between Brown and Grieve made each equally responsible, and further, that the loss ofthe six cattle had not been proven. The case he cons dered fully made out for the plaintiff, and that tl c verdict must be given against the defendants. The Magistrate found the plaintiff's case proven, and that 30s. a week was a fair wage. Judgment for £13 lis. m'geath v. bbacken. In this case the plaintiff did not appear, and Mr. Macdonald made a claim for costs of defendant's staying in town to appear. He had beon in town eleven days. Claim allowed— eleven days at 10s. per day — £5 10s. TAYLOR V. HICKS AND FBANCISCO. Claim for wages (£3). Verdict for plaintiff. The Court then rose.