TUESDAY, APRIL 16th, 1889.

Te Aroha News, Volume VI, Issue 361, 20 April 1889, Page 2

TUESDAY, APRIL 16th, 1889.

(Before IT. W. Northcroft, Esq., R.M) (In our Wednesday's issue we gave a condensed report of the business transacted in the R. M. Court on Tuesday, we now report more fully the two defended cases). John Brian v. Henry Hopper Adams : Claim £45 12s Gd wages, alleged to he due for work done at Komata, being 140 day's at 8s per day, and 18s 6d paid on account hv defendant, less credits amounting to £11 4s. Mr McG. Hay for plaintiff, Mr J. A . Miller for defendant. [[t will be remembered this case was pretty fully gone into the previous Couit day, and adjourned in order that Mr Thos. Logans evidence might be ol.tair.ed, he being the contractor who supplied the fencing posts to Mr AdmvH, and to whom plaintiff asserted he paid the two cheques, one of £20 and one of £5, which MiAdams assorted were paid to defendant on account of his own wages. Defendant admitted owing plaintiff a balance, but asserted he reduced plaintiff's wages, with his consent, from 8s to 7s per day after he had been working for him about six week**, and that plaintiff now denying this, and also denying that he received the £25, put it out of the question for him to settle with plaintiff except by allowing the case to come into Court. The evidence of Mrs Adams taken on the previous Couit d,vy, was to the effect that at her husband's request she gave Brian the two cheques of £20 and £5 on account of his own wages, and that Brian told her he had arranged to work at the reduced wages of 7s per day, Thos. Logan on being sworn raised the question as to who was going to pay his expenses. Air Hay asserted that Logan could only claim actual expenses Incurred by him in coming to Couit, and not for his loss of ■•time, etc. His Worship rule* l differently, and said this question had often been ar»ued before him in the Waikato Courts, and in order to test tho matter in a higher Court ho had himself raided tho question in the Supreme Corrt, Auckland, in a case in which ho had been -übpoonetl as a witness, and it was

tlion Iti id down by Mr Justice billies that he was entitled not only to travelling ex- i pcnscs, but also to reasonable expenses i whiKt detained attending the Court. His '• Worship referred Mr Hay to Section 35 of the Resident Magistrate's Act, 18Q7, and Schedule D of same, Mr Hay contended that in a case such as that now before the Couit, only travelling expenses should be allowed, but His Worship ruled otherwise, and Logan stating he wus willing to aocept Brian's promise to pay him his exponses, the case was proceeded with . Thos. Logan, in reply to Mr Hay, said : Fam a settler residing at Paeroa. I know the defendant, Mr Adams, and remember taking a contract from him for the supply of: a quantity of posts some two or three years ago, I cannot now find any broks with any entry with espoct to the number of posts delivered to Mr Adams. I remember I got paid by Mr Adams almost as soon as I had completed the oontr.ict. I be* lieve the price for the posts was £5 per \ 100, and the number something over 500. lam only speaking now from supposition, as I cannot lemember very definitely, it id so .long ago. I remember I was paid by cheques, I think I received two cheques in payment, but f 'do not remember the exact amounts of the cheques. As far as I can remember one of" the cheques was signed by Mrs Adam*, the other b} Mr Adams. I do not thin it either of the cheques was for so small a sum as £5. I hid no other contract with Mr Adam", One of the cheques w.-is given me by John Brian, I do not remember hovr I received the other, wln-ther it came by post, or how. In reply to Mr Miller : I think I cashed one of the cheques in To Aroh i some time after I received it. A chpqno for LI S was at this st'ige of the proceedings handed to witness to examine, who paid ie was voiy like one of tho'-e he received from Mr Adams in payment for the post-'. The cheque bore the bank stamp as piid on August 16th, I 88& ; and an entry appeared in Mr Adams bank pass book (produced in Court) for LI5 > paid Logan on August lGth, 1886, A cheque for LT6 was next handed witness who said lie recognised the endorsement on back as his own. The bank stamp on this cheque showed that it was paid on September 11, IBS 6 ; which date was found to tally with Mr Adams' bank pass book entry. Witness : I am quite satisfied those two cheques just shown mo aie the ones I received from Mr Adams in payment for the posts ] supplied him with, I never received any monies from John Brian except by cheque. In reply to His Worship : lain quite satisfied the two cheques produced are the ones I received in full payment of my account against Mr Adairs. Tliisclospd the case for plaintiff. Mr Miller then addressed the Bench, and in the course- of his rem.uks said ; His client, the dpfendnnt, always admitted he owed plaintiff a balance, and the reason it had not been paid long since was that Brian never rendered him an account, until after ho disputed receiving the two cheques of L2O and L 5. It had been clearly proved in Court tint these two ch»quen were made out in favour of Brian personally, which w.is strong presumptive eviden'-o in support of Mr Adams' statement that Brian had been p-iid these two amounts, which he now denied. It had been shown the previous day that Mr Adams did not keep a cash book, but simply reliod on his bank book. Seeing this was Mr Adams' way of keeping his account«,if he were to fill in Brian's name in a cheque intended for Logan, wlvit state would his bank book get into? Why it would be of no value to him as a record of his transactions. Then again it had boon proved that the L2O cheque, which Brian asserted h© gave Logan, was given Brian on a Sunday! dated the day previous, and was enshod fit the Bank of N.Z , To A roh si, the following day (Monday). It was extremely improbable, that after Brian travelled down to Ohinemuri to Mr Logans p^ice on the Monday morning, and saw, and as he states gave this cheque to Logan, that Logan would immediately have rushed off to catch his horse and rushed back to Te Aroha to cash the cheque, as would have been necessary if it was Logan who cashed it that day, as stated by Brian. With respect to the reduction in the rate of wages, he would remind the Couit Brian whilst in the witness box admitted "he forgot things at times," that being the case, what more likely then that he would forget his wages had be^n reduced. His client admitted owing plaintiff Ll4 12s 6d ; being the amount of Brians claim less L 25 paid on account, and L 5 8s the difference in the rate of wages claimed as between 8s per per day and 7s per day, Mr ll ay in addressing the Court on behalf of the plaintiff, laid great stress on the fact that Mr Adams had no receipts to produce, nor books, and said he considered the fact of Mr Adams destroying his cheque butts looked very suspicious, seeing he stated he kept no cash book whatever of his transaction^. His Worship, in giving judgment, said he thought from the evidence given that da}there was very little doubt tho cheques asserted to have been paid Brian by defendant were paid to him and cashed by him, With respect to the question of reduction in the rate of wages he con~ sidered the evidence was in favour of defendants version of the case also. Judgment would therefore be for plaintiff for £14 12s Gd with the costs of the first day, viz, Court costs, 33s ; solicitor's fee, 21s. Total, £2 14s. lie would allow no costs with respect, to the adjourned hearing. Robert Mackie v. Ja.s. A.Clarke: Mr McG. Hay, solicitor' for plaintiff. Plaintiff charged defendant with not complying with a maintenance order of 10s per week, fcr the supportof the illegitimate child of his daughter, Christina R. Mackie, of which defendant had been adjudged the father. (Defendant was only released from Mount Eden gaol a few days previously, having completed a term of six month's imprisonment with hard labour, for not procuringsuretios, as required by the Court, that he would comply with the order). Defendant pleaded guilty, stating having been in Mount Kden ever since the order was made against him, he had been unable to comply with it. In repl}' to His Worship defendant said ho had nothing further to snj'. Jas. Clark, father of the defendant, addressing tho Bench said : He had used nil possible endeavours to raise the £30 His Worship had fixed— His Worship : I nover fixod a lump susn of £30. Clarke ; Well your Honor spoko of £30.

"His Worship : Clark came to me £ oonsiderable time ago, stating he was mof^ anxious to try and get Ink poo out of gaol, and Rome propositions \rere made, which he stated he would try and comply with. But I never he;ird anything more from him on the subject till now ; and the ai rears have been piling up ever pince. Olaiko : I used my beet endpavouis to raise the money (L4B 14s). Mis Clarke ulso tried to moitgnge her property' in order that the boy might be relensed, but F-ho failed to do so. I wish to tell your Honor what Mr Mackie said to me, when I went to him to ask him to forgo some of the costs. His Worship : But that will have no bearing on the case and do no good. Clarke : But I would very much like to tell your Honor the answer Mr Mackie gave me, in the presence of his wife, when I told him I would try and raise the £30. His Worship; Your relating any conversation between yourself and Mackio since the tiiiil cannot possibly ha\ e any* thing to 4p with the present char »o. Clarke: Well your hooor I p;.iticularly wish to tell you thet Mr Mackie told me to -l go and tell Iho Warden to go ami put tho h'M where the monkey put the nuts." Mr Hay : My client denies that he &iid that your Worship. Clarke: Another thing your Honor : Mr Mackie I believe told you the boy was. of u«v, that is not tme as h& is only about 18 years of agf. His Worship to defendant : What do you propose to do in the matter of paying this money. Defendant replied to the effect that i£ released lie would piomiße to pay it. His Worship : I must have something more than a mere verbal pionn'9e from you ; veiy often promises are made under ciicutnsta-nces such as thin, and forgotton all about shortly afterward-*, If you. or your people will not give me some security thatthib money will be paid, \on will have to go to Mount Eden gaol for another six months, to bo again waited on when you come out. Defendant : I suppose it will have to be done then ; that's all. Mia Clarke, mother of defendant, having obtained permission to addiess theBench, said : i wish to say your Worship that we have tried every possible means to raise the money to get the boy released. I have tried the Building Society and also. Iho Rank to moitgagc my property, but failed to do bo. If the boy gets out ho cm earn wages to pay the amount of the order ; but if committed to Mount Eden he cannot help himself, an.l itseemstome unnecessary severity. You put the boy down and with yonr foot on his neck tell him to get up, when it is impossible for him to do so ; that's what it really mean". The girl took a false oith when she said the boy ove-i [towered her. Shu is 23 \ears of age and should- know hotter. A girl who used to be out tiil 10 oYlock at niirht shotOcl know bow to take caie of herself, ard if Mr M.icl.io had brousrht up his family as ho should, this would navel" have happened. Ilia Worship •" If you, had bronyht up your boy as you should Imv done,' Mrs Claike, he would not be in the position he is tv-day or have so disgiaced his family. If ] m U will go about getting girls into trouble iv this way, and tre brought n;> IWoro m^, by George I will make tl'icm piy for it «^ long as I sit on the bench, I ivm-MiiU'i lone ease in which a I. id iel'usoij tncomph' with J .he older, and w.is sent l>u-k to £>.u>l threo timeft, and after serving eighteen months in gaol, the money was pni<l . Order made fo-- the pa-yment of L 22 14 < (arrears, etc.) forthwith, and to find two> s.ne'ies of L5O each, ih it the ma : nt snance order of 10s per week be .complied with, or in default six nionths imprisonment in Mount Kden gaol, with bird labo-ur, tin sureties not being forthcoming-, defendant was hemoved in custody.