RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Temuka Leader, Issue 1282, 27 December 1884, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Geraldine —Tuesday, Dec. 23, 1884. [Before H. C. Baddeley, Esq., R.M.] BREACH OB’ TOWN BY-LAWS. For allowing a horse each to wander on the streets, R. S. Cook, W. Gaiger, and W. Heney were fined 5s and costs. CIVIL CASES. G. Davey v. G. Wood—Claim £29 13* 9d. Mr Raymond for plaintiff, and Dr Foster for defendant. A payment of £6 was made info Court. Mr Raymond, in opening the case, stated that the claim was for balance due for wages, at the rate of £2 10s per week, £1 2s 6d for milk and Is for rope. G. Davey, the plaintiff, sworn, stated: I remember engaging with the defendant, G. Wood, on December 4th, 1883, at Ashburton, to work as blacksmith. The rate of wages agreed upon was £2 a week for the first three months, and £2 10s afterwards if I suited. I was to have a house rent free, and also to have milk. A man named G. Phillips heard us make the agreement. I do not know where he is now. 1 agreed to the terms of the agreement, and subsequently worked on them. I worked with defendant at Woodbury. I have been with defendant twelve months. I had a settlement on March sth, 1884, the end of the first three months. (Receipt put in.) Defendant then told me I suited, and he would stand to his agreement. Since then I have received quarterly statements of accounts. (Statements produced, showing amount of cash or goods supplied by defendant to plaintiff.) The statement dated sth December shows a balance of £7 Is 3d due to me, which I do not agree to. From the 6th of March last I have never agreed to work for less than £2 10s per week. We had no written agreement. Defendant said he did not require one. The current rate of blacksmith’s wages is 9s or 10s a day. On the sth November defendant gave me a month’s notice, saying he had let the business. I have never been paid the amount I now sue for, and the notice of the payment into Court I only received yesterday. Cross-examined by Dr Foster : I got milk for seven months from defendant, and then I got it elsewhere and paid at the rate of os per month for it. For the defence,

Dr Foster called G, Wood, who stated : I am a blacksmith living at Woodbury. I remember meeting plaintiff in Ashburton on the day staled. I agreed with him to work for me at the rate of £2 per week for no stated time, a months’ notice to be given on either side. I told him I had a cow, and that ha would no doubt be able to get milk for his children. Nothing was said on my part about suiting or about £2 10s per week, neither did plaintiff say anything about the £2 10s till he came in to settle with me, when he said he wanted that rate of wages for the last nine months. On the Bth of this month I asked him to come in and settle up and he said he would not until he saw further into it. I told him I wanted the house and that he must leave. It was not part of my agreement to supply him with milk, and I only supplied him because I had plenty of it.

By Mr Raymond : I hare the clearest possible remembrance of the money matters. I remember I only engaged him for £2 per week. In the quarterly statement dated June sth there is an overdraft of 11s 3d. I forgot to deduct it in the next statement. This closed the case.

After hearing, counsel’s argument, the Bench granted a nonsuit, on Mr Raymond’s application, without costs. TEMUEA. Wednesday, December 24,1884. f Before S. D. Barker, and D. InwooJ, Esqs., J.tVs. UNREGISTERED DOG. James Crawford was charged with having an unregistered dog in his possession, Mrs Crawford appeared on behalf of her husband, and banded in a certificate of registration dated Dec. 3. The information had been laid on Dec. 1. It appeared that the dog was only eight months old, and in consideration of this the Bench dismissed the case. ASSAULT. James Edmonds, a lad of about 12 years of age, appeared in answer to a summons charging him with having, on the 18th inst., committed an assault on Mny Henderson. May Henderson, deposed that she was much annoyed by the defendantcalling her “ Bonny ! Bonny ! ” He annoyed herself and her little girl in the Oddfellows’ Hall at an entertainment in this manner, and when she went to his mother to complain of his conduct the reply she got was that the father of the lad was away, and if he had been at home he would correct the child, but that she (the mother) would not do so. On last Thursday, after the breaking up of the school, he annoyed her by calling her “ bonny,” and when she took no notice ot him he pelted her with stones. She said nothing, but he kept calling her “ bonny.” At the entertainment in the Oddfellows’ Hall he, with some other boys, kept annoying her in the same way, and calling out “ Crush her up : she wants to take her 2s worth of room out.”

Francis Storey said he did not know whether the defendant threw the stone intentionally or not, but it hit plaintiff in the breast. Mrs Henderson said this was her case. She did not want to be insulted in a public place or in any place.

The defendant said it was George Gibson who threw the stone. In reply to the Bench, the mother of the defendant said she had nothing to say, except that she could not chastise the* boy within an inch of his life. She would have been very sorry to have used the bad language Mrs Henderson used to herself.

The Bench pointed out the penalty for the offence was £5 and also imprisonment, but they would deal leniently with defendant. They wdnld dismiss the case, but they hoped it would be a warning to him. He would have to pay 9s costs. ANOTHER ASSAULT, Timothy Burke was charged with having assaulted George Philips on Saturday last. Mr Aspinall appeared for the defendant. Witnesses were ordered out of Court.

George Philips deposed that on last Saturday he found some mud on the posts outside the Cemetery. He accused his own children of having done it at first, but learned that it was done by the defendant’s children. He*afterwards saw the defendant pass by, and he called to him and told him he ought to correct bis children. The defendant replied that he would correct him (witness) pretty smart if he did not mind what he was about. He (plaintiff) went over to him, and asked him to listen to reason and not to talk like that, but defendant took off bis coat and, catching witness by the beard* pulled him to the ground. Mrs Philips came up to protect him, and she had a hoe in her hand. Defendant took the hoe off her, and fait her on the breast. Some time afterwards defendant came round to his place, and asked whether the champion prize-fighter was in. Witness took no notice of him, and Mr Hayburst came up. ]n cross-examination by Mr Aspinall, plaintiff said he spoke first to the defendant on the road, and that the assault took place inside the Park. He went over to the Park gate to reason with defendant, and he pulled his coat off and pulled him to the ground by the beard. He also tried to pull him down by the watch chain.

Mrs Philips gave evidence to the effect that when she saw Burke pull off his coat she begged of Philips not to interfere. When she saw Philips pulled to the ground by the whiskers she ran between them with a hoe. Burke struck her on the breast. The witness was examined at considerable length by Mr Aspinall to the same effect. She added that Burke came back and asked for the champion prizefighter.

Timothy Burke stated that on the 20th he was going to milk cows at Mr Rooney’s, and, as he was passing by the Cemetery, Philips spoke to him about his children and |said he would chastise them and witness too. He came over with a hoe in his hand, and witness asked him to throw down the hoe. He followed witness inside the Park gate, and while witness was taking off his coat he was struck with a blow of a stone on the side of the face, “ and there was the mark.” He had to strike plaintiff in self-defence. Mrs Philips came up and said : “ Let’s kill him now ; there is no one on the road.” She had a hoe in her hand.

In reply to the complainant he said complainant threw the hoe away. He did not say he had some Irish blood in him, and he would kill all the Englishmen in the country. Complainant threw down the hoe but picked up a stone, with which he struck witness. The Bench considered the case clearly proved, and fined defendant 20s and costs. The Court then adjourned.