Resident Magistrate's Court. TE AROHA. TUESDAY, MAY 28th, 1889.

Te Aroha News, Volume VI, Issue 372, 29 May 1889, Page 2

Resident Magistrate's Court. TE AROHA. TUESDAY, MAY 28th, 1889.

: (B-efore IT. W. Northcroft, Esq., R.M> M alone y v. Maloney : In this case Ellen Maloney, of Waharoa, charged her husband, William Maloney (1) with unlawfuliy deserting her and leaving her without adequate means of support : (2 ) also with deserting his three children and leaving 1 them without adequate means of supporb. No appearance of either plaintiff or defendant. Case dismissed. Smaltman v. Cartman : Claim £35 for rent. Nio appearance- of either party. Case dismissed. Baskiville v. Munro : Claim £5 Is lOd for goods supplied. Defendant had paid £1 3s lid into Court and disputed the balance. Plaintiff did not appear but made application by telegraph for an adjournment till next Court day, beinsr unable to attend on account of illness in hie family. Adjourned till June 11th. John Hood v. Edgar and Walker : Claim £28 10s wages for work done on Lord Nelson licensed holding, Tui. Sir Wra. Wasteneys, solicitor for plaintiff, stated the facts relating to the case, the .claim being from December 17th to April 27th, at 5s per day ; and the following witnesses were examined :—: — John Hood (sworn) : I reside at Te Aroha and work as a miner. First saw Mr Edgar a few days prior to 15th December at his whare. He asked me what I was doing and if I wanted a job. I replied I did, and he engaged me, aud I took possession on 17th December of the whare at the mine, Mr Edgar left for Auckland on December 17th. A man named Blame was "working with mefor three days. 1 was protecting the ctaim, Mr Edgar promised to lea*e an order with Mr Dibsell to supply me with tucker. T obtained about 14s worth of tucker on Mr Ed war's account from Mr Dibsell, the rest I purchased ont of my own pocket. I did not see Mr Edgar again until 30th April. I made a demand for wages on Mr Edgar last January. I posted the letter myself addressed Mr Matthew Edo-ar, Auckland. On 30th April Mr Walker came to Te Aroha, and sent a man up to the mine to find me. I saw him and by his request got him a little stone which he took away, and on May St'i I sent 2llbs of stone to Auckland by Mr Walker's request. Early in May I saw Mr Edgar at Te Aroha, and when I demanded my wages, he repudiated my claim, said he never engaged me, and told me to clear out. Inreplyto Mr Walker : Ineversawyou or had any conversation with you till 2nd April. I did not tell you that evening I had not been up to the claim for a week. You did not tell me I was to have a share in the claim for looking after it. (Mr Walker : You will remember your Worship when you asked me on April 2nd who were the shareholders in the claim, I told yon this boy had a share in it. His Worship : Yes). You promised to see Mr Edgar about my wages. By Mr Edgar : I was prospecting with my father in another patt of the | field, but that was after Mr Walker had ' told me on 30th April that I need not go up every day By His Worship : I did know the claim was protected by law, but Mr j Edgar told mo not to leave the ground. I only partly built a whare myself. I built it for amusement in the evenings. Thos. Hood (sworn) : I know my son, the last witness, was at work on the Lord Nelson claim regularly. I saw him working on the ground, and on Sundays too I remember Mr Walker sending up to my house to say he wanted to see my son particularly. My son and myself went down and saw Mr Walker. He asked my son how he was getting on, etc., and at Mr Walker's request he brought him on that occasion some stone. Mr Walker on that occasion asked my son to bring him down a larger parcel of stone, about 301 bs, and send up to him to Auckland. My son is over 19 years of age, and is accustomed to earn 5s or 6s a day. Mr Walker in my presence promised the boy that Mr Edgar would settle up with him when he caraa to Te Aroha. By Mr Walker : It is not a fact that myself and son had a quarrel, and that I drove him away from the house, and that he found shelter up-hill. Alexander McLeod (sworn) : I am camped close to the boundary of the Lord Nelson claim. I know the plaintiff by seeing him up near where I am camped, but am not well acquainted with him. I fir9t saw him come up some time in December. I saw a man named Blain up there with him for a few daya > I did not liear anyone at work on the claim. The plaintiff was off and on up there from* the* beginning of December to some time in February. By Mr Walker : I saw the plaintiff building a whare upon the hill ; my mate is liv]ng ( in it. , By Mr Edgar : He told me in the course of conversation with him that he was expecting his mate, Blain, back to work. He also told me he (plaintiff) had a share in the iord Nelson claim. By Mr Walker: The boy left' the Lord Nelson about the end of February or of March, and went pros-

pecting on another claim, and continued prospecting on this other claim from that time. Cross-examined by Sir Win. Wasfcneys r It was in reply to me wlien I asked plaintiff" the question had he a share in the Lord Nelson claim,, that he told me he h.ad a share in it. In reply to His Worship ; I saw the boy building the whare referred to. I saw him working at it in the day time. Hi» Worship ; On c fine days V Yes, Your Worship, but it did not take very long. William Dibsell (sworn) : Am a storekeeper residing at Te Aroha. I know the plaintiff and supplied him with goods in January. He came to. my store for tucker. He told me he- was working on the Lord Nelson claim. There was an open account at my store j and I think it was Blftin, who was I believe a shareholder in the Lord Nelson, told me to give the lad any tucker lie wanted. It was on Blain*s credit the tuckeu was given. E. B, Walker (sworn) : Am a settler residing near Cambridge. The first time I saw or heard of the plaintiff was on 2nd April. (Blain, a shareholder in the Lord Nelson claim, had previously told me ho had given a boy named Hood a quarter share in the claim, to look after the ground ). The bojs father came and spoke to me about his soti working on the claim, and I told him of the arrangement Blain informed me he had made with his son. He (the elder Hood) did not deny it, but seemed rather dissatisfied, and asked me what he was to do about paying for the tucker the boy had got since h& had gone on the claim. I told him he must see Blain about that, as I knew nothing of the arrangement he (Blain) had made with the boy. The first time wages for the boy were- ever mentioned was about a month ago, when the boy's father came to me and asked for wages for his son. I told him I knew of no arrangements whereby the boy was to receive wages. Was notified to produce a letter said to have bees written by plaintiff in January demanding wages, but neither myself or Mr Edgar ever saw such a letter, or heard of it before. By Sir W. Wastneys : Blain received no wages, but worked on the claim on account of having an interest in the ground. M.Edgar (sworn) : I reside at Epsom, T never employed the plaintiff, and never gave or promised him any wages. By Sir W. Wastneys- : I never had any conversation with the plaintiff about the whare, and never gave him possession of it. How could I, when Blain, another shareholder in the claim, was living in the whare at the time* referred to ? [Sir W. Wastneys : You area scotchman are you not Mr Edgar T No, I am not — I am a better Englishman than, you are. (Laughter).] I never knew the lad Hood was working on the claim, until Blain told me in Auckland that he had given the lad an interest in the ground to look after it. When the boy came to me for wages, I told him to. get out of my sight or I would punch his bead. How dare he come and stick me up for wages, when I never employed him. Any man might as well stick me up in the street for money with as good a reason as this boy has. No further evidence was called, and Sir W. Wastneys addressed the Bench in support of the claim made by his client. His Worship, prior to giving judgment, remarking on the evidence said : The boy (plaintiff) stated he never had and was never piomiseil an interest in the claim. His evidence on this } oint was directly controverted by both the defendants and also by thi» witness M' 1 Leod, who ha.l beeuc.dled by the prosecution. The boy stated in his evidence he made all the entries as to days worked and other matters in the pocket book (produced in evidence) himself and with the pencil then in the book. He had at his (the li.M.'s) request re-written some of the entries, and he had no hesitation in saying the entries made by the boy in Court were not written by the same pencil as those in the book. The boy had also stated on his oath that the whole time he spent in the erection of another whare was in the evenings, in his own time after being at woik on the claim during the day ; whereas the witness McLeod distinctly stated he saw him working at it in the day time. Also, with respect to the length of time he alleged he was at work on the claim, his evidence was flatly contradicted by other witnesses. Taking it all through he considered the evidence of the plaintiff was unreliable. He had little doubt an airangement hail been come to at on • time, whereby plaintiff was to have had an interest in the claim, at a time when no doubt it was thought a share might prove very valuable, and it looked very like as though the idea of trying for wages was thought of afterwards, when it seemed as though a share in the claim would prove of very little value. Judgment for the dsfendants. Two plaints laid by the Dog Eegistrar, for breaches of (he Do<r, Registration Act, were withdrawn by him. This was all the business.