RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1607, 14 July 1887, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

; s , Temub a—Wednesday, July 13,1887. (Before J. M. Ollivier, Esq., R.M.) ABUSIVE LANGUAGE. Timothy Foley was charged on the information of, John Robert Murray, . watchmaker, I'emuka, with using abusive ami insulting language towards him on the 29th June last. Mt AspiunU appeared for . the informant, and Mr Toss will for the defence. John Robert Murray staled that on the 29th June defendant came to his shop, and complained about certain repairs to a watch < having been improperly done, and also that the charge made (6s 6d) was excessive. Witness said that,Only 1 3s 6d had been charged, and .was referring to bis books, when defendant called him a liar and a—rogue. Told him he would not listen to such language, and ordered him out of the shop. Defendant appeared to hesitate about going, bat on witness coming round the counter he went outside the door. When oh the doorstep, defendant said ; “ If you come.outside I’ll smash your-—•-head,”: Cross-examined : The complaint was about the cost of the repairs. Was not afraid of defendant or any other man, but desired him to be bound over to keep the peace, as be might at any time repeat the offence. ,

Wilfred Cooper, painter, Tcmuka, remembered the 29th Jane, Was working at: Mr Murray’s,’ Came into the shop from the back premises and heard Murray say that lie would refer to his books as to the charge tor repairs. Defendant called Murray a liar and a —— rogue, Murray then ordered him out. Afterwards heard defendant tell Murray he would smash his ——• head. Soma argument here ensued as to the wording of the indio'men l . Mr Tosswill submitting that ii was bad, and Mr Aspinall contending that it was properly laid in’ accordance with clause 8, subsection 3 of “ The Justices of the Peace Act,” . -

His Worship ruling the indictment in order, Mr Tosswill called ' Timothy Foley, the defendant, who slated that he went to corap’ainant’# shop about a watch which had been repaired a few Weeks ; previously, and Which had got out of order shortly afterwards. Plaintiff had charged him 6s 6d tor the repairs. Admitted calling him a liar and a “ dashed ” rogue. Never used a stronger expression. When ordered had gone out at once. Did not threaten to smash Murray’s head. Murray had threatened to come outside and thump him. Replied that if he .(Murray) came outside two could play at that game. Was certain ho never used the language mentioned by Cooper and Murray, 1 Considered plaintiff a sort of a cripple, .Bartholomew Martin, sworn, said he was present while Foley was in Murray’s shop. Heard the dispute about the watch; .Something was said about the charge made. Fo’ey called complainant a rogue and a liar. Murray ordered Foley to leave or he would put him out. Foley went opt apd told Murray if he would come outside he cppld have it out. Did not hear anything ,al}iut smashing MurF4V*6 head, j?oley did not use violent language,

His Worship.dismissed the case, re* marking that although bad language had doubtless been used Murray was apparently in no bodily fear of defendant and “ bard words broke no bones.” Each party would have to pay bis own costs.

Oiyif- CASES. Judgment by default was giyen in each of tbc Nipping cases j—Jumee

Blyfh v. W. Lpwis, claim £6 14s 5d ; G. Bolton v. U. Matthers, claim £5 : . Os 6 i. J, Angland v. Qmnn —Claim £lO 7s ; judgment summons. _. Th’s case was adjourned for a fortnight to admit of plaintiff bringing such evidenc'd* as would satisfy the Court/that defend--' ant hod earned sufficient money since ihe previous judgment to satisfy the claim, • 'if " / W, G. ■ Aspinall v. ;'H. Gayson— Claim £3 Is 4d, balance of account.for,, professional services. Mr Tnggwill appeared for defendant, ..and Mr Aspinall. conducted .bis. own. case. : Mr Tosswill submitted that' the account furnish'd by plaintiff to the defendant was an incomplete onej as it set forth ' a' charge “ for Vgeot’s charges ; without going into;particulars Of same, and also that the whole araount‘claimed was out of proportion to the value of the. services rendered. Mr Aspinall said .that he .had followed the usual legal practice.! .He :had to par costs out af:pockets more than £Bl4s. : i' ; His Worship thought .the account furnished was in or'd’er, ' and” gave judgment for the amount . claimed land costs... ; .. . ... ' Charles Wells v. James Streeter— Claim £ls for wages. ‘ ' j Mr Tosswill appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Aspinall for the the defendant put in a. ( set-)ff of £9 16s 6d, and paid into Court the sum qf;£B 3:is 6d, inffull the doirtl. 1 ' i; "' • Mr Tosswill, in opening the case., said that the plaintiff*was' placed iq -anawkward position. He had been working at defendant’s threshing mill, and was id he paid at the rate of 10s! per thousand bushels for wheat and,. Bsj per thousands tor. foaig. Plaintiff; .baj f hV/ actual means ;of /knowing how iipany bushels had been threshed at the> itipiy* he left the mill, but understood' 'that there were about 80,000, and had.'biased his claim on that, ; >.h . - Charles Wells seid that hoi had bseri engaged as cook on Streeter’s mill’.a! the ssme wages »s the' other men jwere receiving. Had threshed at various places, and left when the mill was at Paterson’s. Was: charged with 1 his board, and understood that there would be an allowance made to the cook.' Thi*

men were 'o pay equal shares per man of whatever the "provisions camq to. Heard it amounted to about 9s or 9s 6d per man per week. Thought about 10s would be a reasonable charge. Was charged in the set-off 14s per week. • Tbs tent in *he set-off was 1 left at Paterson’s, and Streeter took it. Had! left it there, and when be returned lor it h" found that it had been taken with the - Was told Sljreetef had taken it, because it was not pai l for, : Cross-examined : Was accused by Streeter of taking stores from the camj: and left inconsequence. Was working 7 weeks. The usual wag s for a cook would bo about 35s a week. Wae engaged by Streeter, Nothing definite was said about an allowance to the cook but understood he would get something, as he had to work daring wet weather The arrangement among the men wat that they should each pay their share oi the “ tucker ” bills. Never understood that if he loft before the end of the season he would have to pay 14s a week. Had never asked Streeter about the tent. Had asked for a settlement. Mrs Wells remembered having a conversation with Streeter about hoi husband’s wages,, Streeter said the cost of the provisions would be about 9s ot 9s 6d per week for each man. Said bet husband onght not to have left when be did, but that he would be paid every halfpenny. .

George McNally = Was working with Streeter’s machine. When Wells left, 19,567 bushels of wheat had been threshed, and 9,046 bushels of oats. The custom among mills in the district was for the men t 6 divide the cost of provisions among them, and if anyone left before the end of the season he was charged at the rate of 14s per week. A man leaving, without warning caused a lot of inconvenience.. For the defence, Mr Aspinall called James Streeter, the defendant, who stated that he had engaged plaintiff as cook. He was to get paid in the same manner as the other men. Nothing was said about weekly wages. Found after starting that the current rates were 10s for wheat and 8s formats, and paid accordingly. If a man left the mill suddenly Its per week would be stopped from his wages for board. If he remained the whole season he paid his share of the cost of the provisions, and took the benefit, if any. Wells had left after being accused of taking things from the camp- Did not personally accuse him, but in consequence of complaints by the men had mentioned the matter to Wells, so that he might have an opportunity of making an explanation. Had, a difficulty in procuring a cook after Wells left, and charged £1 for loss of time caused thereby. Had paid £l

for a tent for Wells, which had been renpyed fyy sqnye of the men by mismjstake from Paterson's* Wells could hqwe it at any time. Oposs-ewined ? The cost of the provisions amounted to about 9s 6d a week for each man. Did not know if any mention had been made to Wells about paying 14s a seek. Had lost a lot of time through Wells leaving without notice. Was driving the machine himself, and haying to look for a cook'personally the machine had fyeen kept icile. The machine was not (

i _.'-!!!!!! _s» artokeA ' sit*. Paterson’s. The was bent, but the chine could have kept working. Took r the opportunity, of the cook being iway to.get the spindle straightened, Thos*. Hutt gave evidence as to the eustom with , regard to payment for board. In’’giving ■■ Judgment His Worship siid there had been no definite understanding aa to the;, charge, for board. He j l6| pel week would be . a,reasonable, thing. 3 udgment would be for threshing 19,567'bushels at 10s per thousand and 9,046 bushels pats at 8s per thousand, less 7 weeks board at and - sundry payments admitted had been made on,his account. Hashould not allow for the tent nor for Streeter’s loss offtime. Judg nent was entered up for £6 l4a, less the amount-paid into Ooiirt. The usual costs were allowed. ; , L 'y. xl . 1 Nathap Johnson v. Michael Scaimell —Claim £l7 5s lid. - . Mr Aspinall appeared for jplaintiff. Mr Scanneli conducted his bvra case. Mr. Scanneli handed in to the Court a statement of accounts between himseif and showing the latter' to be indebted td him to the sum of £4,65.; .TJir Worship pointed oat itjhat,.. the! , could not be in , eyid ehce., I)efendant’s proper course would.behy means of a crdsß action, ! ' Plaintiff was' tiieii questioned by ,Scanneli. as, to several iteips charged in his account, particularly as to a charge’of £3 J for 1 wages while waiting for a,. and also, as to the sums of 3s 3d and 1 6s 4d, two amounts which he "said Scahnel Ishbuld ‘ have collected for hiM * . ■ - After hearing .the evidence of deahdfcj tV. Gake, who had been, employed. by to .make , out certain accounts for.: hint, His Wbrship gave judgment for£l6 l.Os'v hd/ with Costs. ;• ly r.\ M j ‘'On the application of tbCdefehdant It%|s'l arranged poste should fie. paid, atvbncej ,phe amount .of the j s|p,jild ! he! impounded by the Court, pending the, result of a cross action to. he brough tby Scanneli against Johnson, nnd which His'Wor- ; ship' : 'demdißcl ; '.‘;ko Hear •■ at the next sitting of the Court.’ ‘ ‘*' T^e,Court then rose..