RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Temuka Leader, Issue 1343, 21 May 1885, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Temuxa—Wednesday, May 20, 1885. [Before J. Beswick, Esq., R.M., S. D. Barker, Esq., J.P.] CIVIL OASES. J. Brown v. H. Rogers—Claim £1 7s.—The plaintiff stated the amount had been paid, and only asked for payment for the costs. Granted. John Craig v. H. Rogers—Claim 19s,—Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs, 6iegert and Faavel v. H. Rogers— Claim £1 19s.—Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs, Dr Foster v. W. D. ShepherdClaim £1 19s. The amount originally due was £2 19s, but the plaintiff agreed to reduce the claim to £2 2s, and of this £1 bad been paid. The balance remained still due, and he now sued for it. For the defence it was Bbown that a cheque for it had been forwarded last week, but the plaintiff denied having received it. Judgment for the amount claimed and costs. Execution to be delayed until it was discovered what had be* come of the cheque. Joshua Langridge v. Robert Edgar —Claim £3 13s 4d. The evidence of the plaintiff was to the effect that he worked for the defendant in the harvest time, stooking and carting, and that the money was due to him for work and labor done. The defendant alleged that the defendant left him in the middle of the harvest, and on this ground he refuied to pay him. His Worship said there was no agreement, and one man's word wan as good as another. The plaintiff had evidently done the work, and was entitled to be paid for it. Judgment would be given for £3 10s lOd, each party to pay his own costs. Henry Woods v. Henry WilliamsClaims £7 ss,

Mr Aspinall appeared for the plain tiff.

The defendant had filed a set off, and had paid into Court £2 4s, the amount he admitted to be due.

Tbe plaintiff stated that, induced by telegrams sent by Messrs Thorn ion and Smith and the defendant, he came to Terauka from Oamaru to work for defendant. He worked for defendant and nothing was said abont the rate of pay. The wages he was accustomed! to get were 10s per day. The defendant never complained of his work. He tiad to alter some jobs at the request of the defendant.

B. Smith gave evidence to the effect that the defendant told him to telegraph for plaintiff, but never mentioned the rate of pay. Henry Williams, the defendant, stated that the man worked a week for him, and he then told him be was only worth 6s per day, and that he would not pay him any more. He would prove by experts that the man was not worth 4s per day.

David Henry was called, bat said be bad do idea what tbe man was worth, He seemed to make a good clean job. John Craig said the job the man did for himself was done right enough, only that he made tbe mistake of patting a step on the wrong side. Louis Buss was next called, and a bundle of pieces of timber submitted to him to say whether they bad been properly done, but tbe Bench reminded the defendant he had not proved that the work had been done by the plaintiff. Tbe defendant then proceeded to examine the witness as to the value of a butcher's cart made for Messrs Thomson and Smith, but the Court reminded him that this had nothing to do with the case, and so the witness left the box without throwing any additional light on the subject. John Collins, a youth, who afterwards admitted he was a brother-in-law of tbe defendant, stated that'about a week after plaintiff commenced to work he was told by tht defendant that bis wages would be only 6s per day, He also heard defendant telling plaintiff that he would be held responsible tor any timber he might waste. In reply to the Court, the witness st id the defendant told plaintiff be would be held responsible for'-waste before} plaintiff had wasted anything; and after some further interrogation the Resident Magistrate said to the witness : " Yoa are better stand down. Ido not believe one word you say." His Worship said this was another stupid case in which there was no agreement. The set-off appeared a very trumped-up sort of business, and judgment would be given for the plaintiff for the lull amount claimed and costs, The Court then adjourned.

GERALDINE,

Wednesday, Mat 20, 1885. [Befor* Captain Temple and the Bsv, G. Barclay, J.P.'s.] ALLEGED PERJURY. Mary Spence was charged by Robert Glass with having committed perjury in a case heard at Gisborne where the defendant's evidence was taken in a civil action Glass v. Spence. Mr JUmersley appeared for defendant who pleaded not guilty. Inspector Broham conducted the prosecution. C. E. Slierratt sworn deposed : I am Clerk of the Resident Magistrate'e Court, Geraldine. 1 remember Mr Glass taking out a summons in this Court against Alexander Spence for a debt of £3 Hs 7d on the 9th May, 1884. The bill of particulars was supplied. (The summons and bill of particulars were produced). It was forwarded first to Timaru and wag finally served on the defendant on tho 21it day of November last at Gisborne,

H. C. S. Baddeley: I am Resident Magistrate for the Gerald in e district. On the date set down for hearing the summons it could not come off because of an application by the defendant's solicitor for bis and other witnesses' evidence to be taken under the Resident Magistrate's Evidence Act, 1870. The cnae was therefore adjourned till the case was heard at Gisborne, when the evidence was to be taken. Previous to this I gave instructions to my clerk that as soon as the evidence came he was to hand it to the plaintiff to read. When the case was called on on the 2nd March last I asked the plaintiff if he had read the evidence. He replied he had. 1 then asked him if he was in a position to disprove the defendant's (Spence's) evidence, and whether he could Bay that the accused (Mrs Spence) was not supplied with necessaries by her husband. He stated he was not in a position to do so, as he had nerer seen the husband, and did not know anything about him, I then said he must be nonsuited on the evidence before me. I quoted a case in support of what 1 said : Johnson v. Sumner. I remarked to Mr Glass that if he got further evidence he could go on with the case again. On my next visit to Geraldine I heard an information had been laid for perjury, and that Mr Raymond, of the firm of White, Smithson, and Raymond, Timaru, had instructed that this should be done. Aa none of the firm had Appeared in the caee I requested Mr Raymend, who was in Geraldine, to see me at the Court. He did so, the plaintiff being present. I asked Mr Raymond if he had read the evidence, and stated why I had nonsuited the case. I also said these matters weie often very expensive, and I thought he had better look into the matter. I expiessed my doubts to him, although the woman might have foresworn herself, whether it was legal perjury, inasmush as possibly her evidence was not material to the issue, as the case would be complete without it; the plaintiff having to make out Wb own case. Mr Raymond then said that he would look further into the matter, and Mr Glass took a copy of the depositions. To Mr Broham : I received the evidence of the accused in deciding the case, but did not swear Glass, as he said he could not prove that Spence was liable for his wife's debts. (The accused's evidence, taken before Mr Booth, R.M., at Gis* borne, was put in.) Mr Glass was much annoyed that he did not recover his money, and said the accused's evidence was a tissue of falsehoods. Cross-examined by Mr Hamersley: I did not hear Glass's evidence, inasmuch as he was not able to prove that Mrs Spence was not supplied with necessaries. 1 could not see whether her being in Glass's shop er not could affect the case. Mr Hamersley asked the Bench at this stage to decide whether there was sufficient evidence to show that the accused's evidence was material to the issue of the ease; if not to dismiss the case on those grounds. Inspector Broham said he could not proceed further with the case, as from Mr Baddeley's evidence he did not conaider Mrs Spence's evidence material to the case. The Bench retired for a few minutes, and on returning said they had agreed to dismiss the case. The Bench advised Mr Glass to be more careful in future in trusting married women when there was a doubt as to their husbands acknowledging the debts so contracted.