RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1746, 5 June 1888, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tsmxjka—Monday, June 4, 1888. , [Before Captain Wray, KM.] CIVIL CASE*. ' G. Bolton y. E. Hornbrook—-Claim £5 13s Bd. Judgment by default lor the amount claimed and costs. 0. Diggens v. J. Malarkey—Claim £4s 10s. There wa* a set-off for rent of a house. The plaintiff said that he had cut 60 chains of a gorae fence for the defendant at 6d per chain, and- cut and stubbed 30 chains at Is per chain. He also worked 73 hours at lOd per hour last harrest for him. He had only received £2. No fault was found with any of his work. He stayed in an old house belonging to defendant, but wa* asked by defendant to do bo to prevent oat* which were there being stolen. The house leaked so that he had to pitch his tent in it. Other people were for some time staying in the house. John Malarkey said, the plaintiff only cut 30 chains of fences for him altogether, 12 of which.were stubbed. The 73 hours in harvest was correct. He charged Is 6d a week for the use of the house. , His Worship said the evidence as regards the gorse cutting was conflicting. The rent of the house would go against the plaintiff’s claim, and judgment would be given for the defendant. E. Pilbrow v. T. Davis Claim £lo* Bd. The plaintiff stated the amount was due for commission." The defendant came to him, and told him he had some cocksfoot grass se.ed for sale. Plaintiff seat a sample of it to Dunedin to Messrs Nimmo and Blair, and they offered 3*d for it delivered in Dunedin. This offer was accepted by the defendant. The defendant did not deliver the seed, but sold it to Mr Brown. In reply to the defendant, witness said he sent the sample to Dunedin on the 13th and on the 19th received a reply. When the reply came he told defendant, who said he must consult his partner before accepting the price. Defendant came back the same evening and accepted the price. Tom Davis said ho went to plaintiff with the sample, and in a week after |he answer came from Dunedin. The offer was 3fd delivered in Dunedin. Told the plaintiff he (witness) could not accept without seeing his partner. Went to see his partner that evening, left his house till 11 o’clock, Did not see Pilbrow that evening at all. Hi* partner said they eould not

accept the offer. To their surprise Pilbrow followed them to Connolly’s, where they were harvesting, and asked them to deliver it. They told him they would not sell until after harvest. They saw him one day aftewards in Commerce street, and told him they would not take less than 3-£d cash, delivered at the railway station, Temuka. Mr Pilbrow went to Dunedin about the same time, and they sold the cocksfoot to Mr Brown.

Martin Melvin, the partner referred to, stated that he was sure the grass seed was not sold to Pilbrow. The grass seed was in his possession, and could not be sold without his consent, and he would not consent to send it to Dunedin without being first paid. Was present at a conversation in Commerce street, but did not know what was said. They told Pilbrow when he went to Connolly’s they would not sell now until after harvest.

His Worship said the plaintiff had been put to a good deal of trouble, and was entitled to be paid. Judgment would be given for the amount claimed and costs.

; F. Morris t. M. Quinn—Claim £5. ■Mr Hay appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Aspinall for defendant. The facts of this case were that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant, and that the defendant kept back out of the plaintiff’s wages £s— and £4 as the value of a dog taken away by the plaintiff. Michael Quinn, sworn,, stated that on Sunday, the 19fch of February last, he went down to Milford early in the morning, and found one of his horses saddled in the stable. Ascertained that Morris had only just reached there from Temuka, where he had been all night with the horse. Told Morns he would not allow him to treat his horse that way. On the following Thursday his son told him Morris was leaving on Saturday. He called on Morris, who said he was leaving. He told him that was not nice after having been 8 or 9 years in bis employ to leave without a week’s notice, and that he would deduct £1 from his wages if he did so. Morris said he could do so. About 7 weeks afterwards Morris went for his wages. He (Mr Quinn) asked him to return “ Glen ” the dog. Morris refused, and he kept £1 in lieu of a week’s notice, and £4 for the dog. To Mr Hay: Four or five years ago Morris had a dog of his own, and it was shot. Glen was not given to Morris to replace the shot dog. Never gave Morris to understand that Glen was given to him. It was taken as a puppy to the farm, and grew up there. Did use pretty strong language, and was angry with Morris on finding he had been away all night with the horse. Morris did not give a week’s notice then. He said nothing about leaving until tbe following Thursday. John Quinn said he had the dog given to him as a puppy, and left it in charge of hia father when he went away to school. Never gave the dog to Morris or anybody else. Fred. Morris said he had been eight years in the employment of the defendant. On the 18th of February came into town after his day’s work, and tied the horse up. The horse slipped its head oat of the bridle, and some one took it down to Story’s stable. Returned to Milford early next morning, and Mr Quinn came shortly after with horse feed. He used very strong language and told witness there and then if he did not like it he knew what to do. Witness then gave him a week’s notice. On Thursday Quinn told him he did not think the notice given on Sunday sufficient. With regard to the dog, it had been given to him be Quinn, to replace the dog that was shot. < He kept the dog, treated it as his own, and had it registered. To Mr Aspinall: Registered the dog in April last, John Quinn, recalled by the Court, said he could not swear that Morris did not tell him on Monday that he was leaving. His Worship gave judgment to the effect that it was probable Morris gave the notice when spoken to by the defendant. He would therefore give judgment for £1 deducted in lieu of notice. It was evident the dog was not Morris’s property, though he might have thought it had been given to him. Judgment for £1 kept in lieu of notice, and 10s for registering the dog in 1887. Mr Hay on behalf of his client, offered to give up the dog, but Mr Aspinall said another dog had been bought, and it was not accepted. The Court then rose.