RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1185, 31 May 1884, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Geraldine — Wednesday, Mat, 28, 1884,

(Before H. C. Baddely, Esq., R.M., L. Walker, Esq., Dr Fish and Captain Temple. J.P.’s) CIVIL CASES.

Jonathan Shaw v. James Flack —Claim £IOO. Mr Raymond appeared for plaintiff. Judgment recorded by default, with ■olicitors’ fee, £3 3s, and Court expenses. A. Sherratt and Co. v. John Fleming —Claim £1 18s Id.

Mr Raymond appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Hameialey for defendant.

A cross action, John Fleming v. Amos Sherratt and Co.—Claim £3l 15s, was heard at the same time, and the evidence wag taken on the two cases.

John Fleming deposed : I am a practical engineer residing in Geraldine, and went into the employ of Sherratt in September last. He asked me first, about the mindle of August last, if I knew anything about engines. The result of our conversation was that he asked me to go up and sae what I could do with his engine. It was used at a saw mill. I went up and started work. Sher r att was sometimes there. The engine was altogether out of order, and it was with great difficulty we could get steam up. I told Sherratt that it would require a new piston and rings. He got them from Christchurch and I put them in. 1 did the repairs and supplied the materials, I am suing him now for it. The engine worked well after she was repaired. 1 cut timber at the saw mill for seven months altogether. Sherratt paid me £2l 17s, for which I gave him credit. He owes the balance.

Cross-examined by Mr Raymond : I arrive at the amount of timber cut from defendants’ manager, Mr Kine, the list of which I produce. Mr King did not give me a statement for all the time I worked, only from January last. I was banded a second statement by Mr Warren about a fortnight ago. Before I received that, I gave a statement of first four months to Mr Hamersley, from memory. I cannot say that Warren’s or King’s statement is correct. Mr A. Sherratt engaged me in September last, but made no arrangements as to how I was to be paid. I only took what I was paid. I took the same money as the other men said they were charging viz., 2s 6d per 100 ft. They told me this about the time I commenced. I worked four days a week, and only sometimes worked the full day. Where I hare charged full days I wag at work on the engine repairing it. I only charged labourer’s wages, 8« per day. I charged £39 6s 6d for cutting timber, and £l4 3s for work and material supplied on the engine I did not know anything about the sale of the timber. I received my wages horn Mr King, the manager. I cannot swear the accounts were correct and never knew what was due 1o me by what the men told me. I kept an account of my spare days at the engine. In the letter I wrote to Mr Sherratt on 11th February I stated that he only owed me £4 odd. I gave this information from what the men told me, Mr Hamersley stated that his client was entirely in the hands of defendants in regard to the quantify of timber cut. t- Mr Raymond said that the statement of timber cut as ■ produced by the plaintiff, was inaccurate.

Cross-examination continued ; I have kept books. I received £2117s at various times which 1 have allowed. 1 know that sum to be correct, as I kept it in memory. I purchased some timber from Mr Sherratt, at the time I was at the mill, amounting to £ll 11s 7d. I admit receiving the timber, in action Sherratt v. Fleming, but I am overcharged. He supplies other people at 10s 6d per 100 ft and 1 am charged lls. I had no settlement with defendant since I commenced with him. I gave Sherratt a cheque for £2, but it had nothing to do with thiscase. It was for money lent. [ was a day and a half at the mill before I set to work in earnest. I was paid for it. Hie work was don® in the middle of August. I gave Sherratt the money back I borrowed. I was not to receive any money for work don® by me to the engine till she was in working order, and if 1 did not put her in order I was not to charge a sixpence. I look from September till 15ih February putting the engine in order and working her. I had to stop working the engine many a time at the first. The defendant did not tell

me to get the material supplied. No one else supplied material for the engine. Defendant never told me not to get material, neither did any of the men at work there do so. All the authority I received from Mr Sherratt was to put the engine in thorough working order, and I required the material for which I charged to do so. I never directed Mr Sherratt to deduct the sum of £8 13s 6d detained by him, to do so. I regarded the other contractors as partners with me in cutting t ie timber. My three partners and myselr supplied the oil used in cutting the limbe r . We should bear any loss if any loss occurred in the cutting of the timbei. I never heard of anything else being required for the working of the mill, 1 was paid by King, but held Shenatt responsible. King bad no right to keep back my share of the money. Re-examined : I received no other money from Sherratt on account of tli3 repairing of the engine than that for the day and a half. I told Sherrr.- would hold him responsible for the mo , ' |n y 1 earned. I never gave Sherratt authority to give any money to King on ray behall. Sherratt engaged me, and I told him 1 looked to him for payment of my wages. Sherratt was a. the mill almost every day and saw me using the material to repair the engine and never objected to my doing so. By the Bench : I have been a practical engineer for the past 25 years. By Mr Hamersley: I have at several times asked both King and for accounts of timber cut, hut only received the oue produced. By the Bench: When I first went intothe matter I was not aware of the other men’s arrangements with defendant till a month after. I ran myself into d-bt in order to carry on. Joseph, Warren deposed: I was working for Sherratt on the mill, and was there when plaintiff came. I was cutting limber. When plaintiff went there the engine was in a bad state, and not much use. [ told Sherratt I had done all I could to her and he had better get a practical man to look at her. I suggested one, and he said he would send Fleming up. Fleming came up next day. He examined the cngineandeithernext day ortliat following he worked at her before coming on _ to contract work permanently. The engine was not in a good state then. He repaired her at different times, and got her to go well. Material was supplied and used on the engine. Sherratt was theie nearly every day, and was there when Fleming was repairing (he engine. He never objected to what Fleming was doing. I was one of the four men who took a contract for cutting timber. I don’t know what arragen-ents were made between Sherratt and Fleming as regaids cutting timber. King kept the tallies of the timber cut. I have been paid in full, and took King’s tally as I did not keep my own. We were paid by Mr Sherratt, and I got the balance due to me last Saturday night. I was paid by King. 1 don’t know how much I was paid, but I believe it was over £25. I was entitled (o receive more than Fleming, i left off work in January Tl.e balance due and paid me last Sr urday was ss. I bad no arrangement with Sherratt about payment for repairs to the engine. Cross-examined by Mr Raymond : The money became due on the sale of the timber, not upon the cutting, except when a man left, when he was paid up. Fleming was entitled to as much as we were for cutting but not for falling. The 2s 6d per 100 ft paid was on the sale of the timber. There were 18,900 and odd feet of stock in hand when Fleming came. That would make my cheque larger tliaa Fleming’s when sold. I have given nrnney to Fleming which I received from King on two occasions. Fleming did not object at all. I assisted Fleming at the engine on several occasions. I have not charged for this. It was for my own benefit to do so. I was sometimes at work falling the timber when Fleming was at work at the engine. We did not know what was the matter with the engine till we got Fleming, We shared all the profits. There were no losses. If we ever wanted small materials for the engine such as rivets we got them without asking Sherratt before Fleming came. I don’t remember Sherratt telling us not to get it, neither do I recollect Sherratt objecting to getting lead. 1 knew nothing about Fleming’s arrangements with Sherratt, but I knew be was going to have a share of the cutting. John Martin, deposed : I was working at the bush for Sherratt when Fleming came. (This witness corroborated the evidence of last vitness.) William Fleming ; 1 am son of plaintiff. Remember defendant coming over to my father’s place. I heard him tell my father that if he mada out his account for material supplied for repairing the engine he would pay him. My father replied, ‘ It is in Mr Hamersley’s hands.’ Charles Trengrove deposed; I am a blacksmith, residing in Geraldine. Fleming got some things from me to repair an engine with. I charged him fair prices for the work. I knew it was for Sherratt’s engine. By Mr Raymond : The particulars in this action amounting to 25s were supplied by me, and paid tor. For the defence, Mr Raymond called Amos Sherratt, who deposed : 1 am one of the partners in a saw mill at Geraldine I employed Fleming, as he told me he was an engine driver. I asked him if he would go up and look at my engine. He did so, and said she would not work right without a new piston, and that if I got that she would work right for years, and lie would guarantee it. He was at work about a day and a half. About a month after two of my men left. I employed him again. He told me he would not go to work till he saw Warren first, and find out the terms from him. He saw Warren and went to work. I don’t know anything further about their agreement, but he went to work on the same terms as the others. I never heard anything further till he left. He then said he’d have a bill against me. 1 asked what for, and he said for the work he did at the engine. I asked him who gave him authority to do this work at the engine. He did not say. During the time Fleming was there at the engine he bought an old blast and fixed it under the engine to give more draught so that they could burn the wet edgings. I t»ld him 1 did not have anything to do with it, so he must not run me to expense. He told me it should not cost me anything, as it saved them cutting firewood, which cost them about 30s per mouth. He told me then he was going to make the engine pump the water, which would

s;ive a lot cf labor, and I told him lie must noi take any steam power. If he did the engine would not be able to do her work. 1 also told him I would not be responsible to any additions to the engine which would save their labor, or would not pay for any material for it He said be would not ask mo. He told me lie had been to Pearpoint’s, and incurred certain charges, I produce the bill showing them. I askod him who authorised him to get the lead. He said be would paj’ for it if I wished it. I told him no, I would pay for it, but prohibited him from getting anything for the engine again without my authority. I called the men together and told them the same, which I told them many a time before. He said he would get no more, and it should not cost me any more, L paid the men 2s 6d per 100 ft for cutting before he put these additions, and 2s 6d after they were done, as these were only additions to save their labor and not to improve the engine. I drove an engine in the Old Country, similar to this one, for years. 1 saw the additions put to the engine fiom time to time, but they were of no profit to me, I had nothing to do with any of the four men separately, and did not receive any separate accounts. I generally paid their leading man, King. They were paid when the timber was sold. I settled up with Fleming for a day and a half’s work in August last. This was outside the mill accounts. I never asked Fleming’s son for his father’s account. His evidence is not correct. I deducted £8 13s 6d from his account, because plaintiff asked me if I would let him have timber to build a small house, I could take it out of what was owing to him for catling timber after the clearing sale of timber on the 25th March. I always pay the men in cash, and I told King to hand me back Fleming’s share, which he did. I allowed £1 on his account. I knew material to that value had been used in keeping the engine in repair. (The witness then enumerated the items he allowed for). When material was required for the mill 1 got it myself.

The witness was cross-examined by Mr Hamersley at considerable length. William King deposed to being engaged at Sherratt’s saw mill with a compsny of four. When the confract was first taken it was arranged that timber should be cut at 2a 3d per 100 ft. That was four years a-m. In September last the arrangement wliK 2s 6d per KX’ft on timber as it was sold, the contractors to find all oil, grease, tar, resin and files, and to keep engine, saw benches, and tramways in repair unless any skilled labor was required, Sherratt finding material. We gave Fleming to understand all this. Any labor on the engine was on the contract. 1 have assisted to mend the engine mid have not charged. The putting in of the piston benefited us. We were partners. The monthly accounts were made out in full, sometimes in the name of Warren and Co. till he left, and then in my name, I received Ml the moneys for the men, and paid the men separately. It was arranged I should keep the tally of the timber sold and the accounts also. 1 received the whole of the money due to the contractors during the time Fleming was there. Fleming never objected to my receiving the money nor did lie to the payments. The last settlement, £lO 15s 7d was coming to Fleming. That was paid to Fleming, but I kept £8 13s 7d back for timber had by him, and £2 2s was detained by the three partners for time Fleming was absent from work. Sherratt was supposed to supply materials for the engine, I heard him say after paying Mr Pearpoint’s account that if anything else were got be would not pay lor it. I understood the afliair to be one of partnership. Mr Hamersley brought the following evidence to rebut (he evidence given.— Mrs Fleming remembered Mr Sherratt coming to their house on the wight th# Court sat, last month. He handed in an account to her daughter. He said to her that her father was to make out his account and he would call in the morning and pay it. She called her father, who told Sherratt that he had had enough of him and he was to pay it through the Court, Sherratt said it was for material used. He mentioned no amount.

Helen Fleming deposed that Mr Sherratt came to their house and handed her an account, and told her to tell her father to make out his account for material used and he would pay it. The counsel on both sides having addressed the Court, the Bench retired, and on resuming judgment was given for £l2 14s lOd in favor of Fleming with costs, and solicitors’ fee £2 2s, The balance of the amount in Sherratt v. Fleming, £1 18s Id, having been admitted, and formed part of (he other case, solicitor’s fee £1 Is was awarded. J. Mundell and Go. v. Thos. Powell.

Mr Raymond appeared for plaintiffs. This was an action brought to recover a certain sum for potatoes. The defendant disputed his liability on the ground that the bags ho refused to taka were not according to sample. He would only pay for a certain number of bags. After bearing the evidence on both sides, the Bench gave judgment for £1 38s lid and costs.

R. H. Pearpoint v. H. E. Smith—Claim £ls 10s.

Mr Hamersley appeared for the defendant. This action was brought into Court by plaintiff against defendant for the value of a ton of household soap supplied. Defendant pleaded his non-liability on the ground that the Winchester Wool scouring works were in the hands of Messrs Bissett, and Co., of Christchurch, and that he ordered the soap as their agent. A circular .vas produced in Court which tended to show that Messrs Bissett and Co. had taken over the works, and in defendant’s evidence lie stated that a similar circular had been sent through the post to Mr Pearpoint, the receipt of which the latter denied. At the conclusion of the case judgment was recorded for plaintiff with costs illegitimacy. James Lochore was summoned at the suit of one Annie Hoskins, of Timaru, to support her illegitimate child of which sha adeged he was the father. Mr Raymond appeared for the applicant. Defendant admitted the parentage, and offered to pay 7s 6d towards the child’s support.

Mr Raymond wished the Bench to order defendant to pay £3 medical expenses, and also to find a surety for the prompt payment of the 7a 6d per weeß. Toe Bench ordered defendant to pay the sum of 7« 6d per week every Wednesday until the child attained the age of fourteen years ; to pay medical expenses, £3, at once ; to find a surety to the amount

of £25 for the due payment of the 7s 6d per week for the fourteen years, and foiling to find that surety to be imprisoned for tlfree calendar months ; also, to pay solicitor’s fee £1 Is. The surety to be approved by the Resident Magistrate. USING THREATENING LANGUAGE. John Bull was charged with using threatening language towards one George Newman. Mr Raymond appeared for the defendant. George Newman gave evidence as to the language used. It appeared from his evidence that the parties were both opposition coach proprietor* running between Peel Forest and the Rangitata railway station. He requested that accused might he bound over to keep the peace. The Stationmaster at Rangitata gave evidence as to the abusive language used, to the effect that the accused would wring Newman’s neck. Did not hear Newman say ‘ You 1 will murder you.’ The Bench bound the accused over to keep the peace towards the plaintiff for one month, himself in £lO and one surety of £5. One witness’ expanses, 30s, was allowed. The Court rose at 6 p.m.