RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1481, 18 March 1886, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tsmuka— Wednesday, Maboh 17, 1886, .[Before J. Beswick, Esq., R.M.]'

STRAY CATTLE.

John Connell was charged with having allowed cattle belonging to him to wander on the railway. A Russell proved that he saw the cattle on the railway reserve. There were children with them, but they were not driving the eattle. —The defendant said he did not know anything about it. He understood the children were driving them across the railway.—Fined £1 and costs. CIVIL CASKS. L.E. Haines v. W. Gill—Claim £5 15s Bd. —Mr Aspinall appeared for plaintiff, and judgment was given by default for the amount claimed and costs. Haywcod v. Elizabeth Heap—Claim £2l7s. Mr Lynch appeared for plaintiff and Mr Aspinall for defendant. This was a case in which the plaintiff sued defendant for wages. It appeared that he was employed in the Royal Hotel when Mrs Heap took it, and continued on. He asserted that Bhe told him she would see him paid, but she asserted that he was only doing work for his board. —. Haywood : I was employed in the Royal Hotel. I spoke to Mrs Heap, and she said if I did the cooking she would see me paid. I only got 3s from her. When I applied for wages she said times were too hard,

To Mr Aspinall: She told me when Burrows left to stay on. 1 never promised to stay for my "tucker." When she told me she could not pay me, I said I could not work for nothing. Elizabeth Heap : I entered the Royal Hotel on the 16th January and told the plaintiff I could not pay him. He asked me could he stay, and I said he could. I never told him to do any work. I lent him the 39.

To Mr Lynch: Mr Burrews is my son. Haywood was there then. Ido not know whether he was working for Burrows or not. Haywood did not work for me after I took the hotel, only what he did for his food,

John J. Heap, son of the previous witness, stated that the night before the plaintiff left he came and said that unless he was paid £1 per week he could not stay. Mrs Heap told him she did not want him.

To Mr Lynch : Did not know what he had been doiug for Burrows. Judgment was given for defendant. J. Brown v G. Vail«-Claim £29 Ss. Judgment summons. Job Brown : On the 24th February I receired a letter promising to send £5. Never received any money since. To MrToaswill : On the 24th February got judgment against the defendant. Issued a distress warrant and it was returned "no effects." .Thomas Powell : The defendant made a catt for me, and I paid him on the 2nd of March £32 for ii.

G. Vaile, defendant: I have had no means whatever to pay. With regard to the trap made for Powell, the money went to my son, who is carrying on the a business.

To Mr Aspinall: I filed in September. '. It was after judgment was got against me cart was taken away. To Mr Toaswill : My son paid for the materia! in the trap, and tho business belonged to him. I handed him over the cheque. I live with my son, and h« has paid me no wages. The business is for sale. My sua brought everything from the Official Assignee. After couHßel had addressed the Court, His Worship said he was always loath to make an order in cases like this, but there appeared to be some collusion between the father and son, and he would order the debt to be paid as follows :—£s forthwith, and the balance at the rate of lOu per week ; or in default one month's imprisonment. P. O'Meara v. Temuka Linseed, Oil, Cake, and Fibre Manufacturing Company (Limited)-Claim £SB 8s 9d. Mr Lynch appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Aspin-dl'for defendant?. Mr Lynch explained that the plaintiff and one Martin Dunn were partners in a contract takes from defendants. Dunn died during the progress of the contract, and CUeara now claimed payment,

Patrick O'Meara : I tendered for carting for the Temuka Linseed Company. My Under was accepted, but I was not able to sign the contract then, and it was given to Dunn on condition that he would take me into partnership. Robert Lavery was also taken into the partnership. During the carrying out of the contract Dunn wii killed, and I finished the contract. I made a demand on the Company, The Company said they had no objection to pay the money, but wanted to know who to pay. Hia "Worship said it did not appear to him there was any question in this case. Mr Aspioall said the question was : Dunn's estate was in a bankrupt state. An order was given by Dunn to Mr Brown on the Company, and he claimed to be paid. The Company was willing to pay, provided a proper receipt could be given. After a long discussion it was decided to proceed with the case. Witness: I never authorised Dunn to giye an order on the partnership money. Lavery, Dunn, and myself provided two teams eacb. After Dunn died I provided all the labor and became responsible for the wages. Dunn told me he had got the contract at my tender on condition that he would take me in is a partner. Mr Aapinall told me he. could not pay until he was instructed by the company. Ifo objection was made to me as a partner when I asked for the money. ] Martin Dunn's tender was 8s 6d per acre, and I tendered for 8s 9d. The work was given to Martin Dunn at my tender on condition that he would take me into partnership. James Roddick gave evidence to the effecj/that the evening before the tenders wpre accepted Dunn a"nd O'Meara agreed to go into partnership. After the tenders were accepted, Dunn told witness that he got the contract at O'Meara's tender on condition that he would take O'Meara in as partner. Robert Lavery also proved that a partnership existed between Dunn, O'Meara, ftnd himaplf. It "yas after the acceptance of the tender witness was taken as a partner. Mrs Dunn ftated she understood her husband took O'Meara in as mat?. She gave her consent to the case being brought into Court. - At this stage the cast wai adjourned lor a week, and the Court rosa,