RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1708, 8 March 1888, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

.Temuka—Wednesday, March 7, 1888. [Before Captain Wray, R.M.] DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. Henry Hacket was brought up churged with haring boon drunk and disorderly, and making use of insulting langiigo at Temnka. Charles Story was. called as a witness. He stated the man came up to him and called him a robber, and so en, witheut aiy provocation. The man had no defence to make, fie expressed great regret at what had occurred, and hoped te be dealt leniently witb. He waa fined 6s for having been drunk, and 10s for the insulting langiege, or the usual alternative. . WEIGHTS AND MEASURE!. James Marshall w«s charged with having in his possession a light weight. • Thos. Livingston, Inspector of Weights and Measures, deposed that he went into Marshall's shop and found the weights correct. As he waa coming away the defendant gsve him the weight produced. He said it had not been used for years. James Marshall said he had not used the weight produced for ten years, and ii was only put to keep tbe door shut. His Worship said it would be necessary lor him to get rid of the woigbt, and he would fine bim la j weight forfeited. '

William Maßon, of Orari, was charged with haying an imperfect spring balanco in hit possession. Thos. Livingstons stated that on the 15th February he visite I the shop of the defendant, and found there ai imperfect spring-balance (produced). To defendant; Your man told me you were oot using the balance, but it was banging up in the same plaoa as the others.

The defendant said it bad not been used as it was broken. Fined Is and costs: balance) forfeited.

James Winning was charged with having in bis possession an imperfect scale. There was nothing wrong hut that a part of it was broken,

It was explained to His Worship that defendant was. a recent arrival.

His Worship said if he convicted defendant at all be would hare to forfeit the scale, and it was a pity that such a fine machine should be forfeited. No conviction would be recorded.

George Bolton was charged with having ' an unstamped weight in his possession. The Inspector said the weight was correct, but was unstamped. George Bolton said it was not his proparty.- It belonged to the owner of a threshing machine, who bad left it there since the time Thomson and Smith lived there. Fined Is, and weight forfeited. Taylor and Velvin were charged with having an unstamped weight in their possession and were similarly treated. A PECULIAR CASE., John Woodhead was charged with having received an overcoat knowing the aims to have been stolen. Mr Aspinall appeared for the defend* ant. Peter Coira stated that an overcoat was stolen from his hotel. Saw the owner hanging it up. It was about October 4th. Had been looking out for the coat since. Was at accused's house on the 25th February and daw the coat there. Found the marks on the oou. Accused asked me had the party who lent it to him not come by it honestly. He said he would not split on his mate, and would sooner do a month himself. He would uot say where he got it. He said he would give it to the man he got it from. I went to him again and he said he had given the coat back. I could not induce him to say who he had it from. The coat was worth 25b.

To Mr Aspinall: I identified the coat. The accused did not object to my looking, at the coat. To the Bench : I can swoar it is the coat from the description I got of it. Constable Morton: Went to accused and asked for the coat, and accused aaid he bad returned it. I warned him, and he said he would do two or three months, sooner than split on his mate. To Mr Aspinall : He is a respectable man, and nothing is known against him. John Wood head, the defendant, atated thxt he got the loan of the coat, and hid taken an oath not to tell. The man promised to be in Court that day but waa not. He never told the constable he would go to gaol rather than tell. Hia Worship cautioned the defendant severely, but he refused to tell who had lent him th 6 coat. The case was allowed to stand ov<r for a week. CITIL CASES. : G; H. Mogridge v. Rose Penn—Claim £1 5s 2d.—Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs. G. H. Mogridge v. C. Kerr—Claim 18s 3d.—Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs. G. H. Mogridge t. J. Mcßratney Claim 8i Id.—Judgment''lay default for amount claimed and costs.

Velvin and Taylor v. M. A hern- -Claim £2 1» 2d.—Adjourned. G. McS. Gentlemun v. H. Friedlander —Claim £2.—Adjourned for a week. J. Haar v. Swaney Broi.—Claim £l6 llsßd.—Mr Raymond appeared for thi plaintiff, and Mr Hay for defendant. J. Haar, plnintiff: In January of thii year arranged with James Swaney to stook and fork for Is 8< per acre. At first be said he had bespoke the work to Joe Lyons', and would let me know in a day or two. There was nothing mentioned about the carting. He asked would hare a nute, and I said "yep." He said he would only havo two drays, and my mite could take a dray. Got Geerge Gilbert as mate. James Swaney came to us one evening and said I would have to get men to go with the dray. I said I would not,-as it was not in my contract. My mate (Gilbert) said it was not likely I would provide draymen when I only only took the stooking and forking. I did not get the men. At the settling ht wanted to take the draymen's w*ges, bat I aaid I would not allow it. He wrote a cheque and gave it to Gilbert for £l6 lis Bd. I worked a day in carting in oats, and charged as the other men were paid. To Mr Hay : It was Dot arranged that I should be paid the same as Mr Young paid. There was nothing about reatooking or half the carting, Fred. Haar: Was present at the Erst interview. James Swaney said ho was going to let the stooking and forking in one contract. Nothing was mentioned about carting. George Gilbert: Went mates with Haar in the contract. Remember seeing the Swaney Bros, come in one evening and saying they were put'ing on four drays, and he would have to put on more men. Jack Haar said; he would not. Let them put on as many men as they liked. David said he would have the work done quicker, and he could go to work at Aitken's. Haar refused to put on the men, and the Swaneys pat on the men themselves, and said he would have to pay for them. At the settlement I got £l6 Is Bd, but they refused to pay Ham's share in full.

To Mr Say : The usual custom is when tho carting comes ooe man does the forking and the other gets paid by the hour for the carting. Haar had nothing to do with the carting. Was going to leave, and divide what' I made with my matt. That was the custom for the last 30 years that 1 have been harvesting. James Swaney :'Haar cams to me and agrend to take the crop for Is Bd. He was to stook it, to keep np the stooks, to fork it, aad send one man with each dray. He asked me to put on four drays, and I did, When it came to settling up the amount oame to over £32, and over £4 was deducted for the dmy-meo. He refused to lake it.

Peter Swahey : Was not present when the contract waa mad*\ Was present at an interview afterwards. My brother said the terms were—stook, fork, and one man to go with the dray, Haar said he did

not understand that w iy. I said to Haar " What's the use of you taking a contract it you do not understand itt" He said nothing about it afterwards. Was pre* ■ant at the interview when *e told him t,i look out for two men for the draya. Ke aaid, he was under the impressien he it ad nothing to do with the drays. To Mr Raymond: He refuted to get i he men.

David Swaney gave corroborate evi* •I jnct, ind eaid Mr Grow paid 2a an acre, because his crop was heavier. N F.Young gave evidence te the effect t hat he had got his ttooklng, forking, end cutingdone for Is Bd. Counsel on both sides having addressed the Court, His Worship gave judgment f )t the plaintiff with costs. The Court then adjourned.