RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1755, 26 June 1888, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tkmuka—MpifDAT, Jwb 25, 1888. [Before K. F* Gray and J. T. M. ~. : Hayhurst, J.P.'s].: DRUNK : AKD DISORDERLY. John Malarkey was charged with fceing, drunk and disorderly while in ieharge of a horse and dray, on 22nd June. He pleaded guilty, and said it would * hot have happened only he got a ; little excited, having receded a summons, Constable Morton deposed to having his attention' drawn to accused at twenty minutes past two on Friday afternoon; He was screaming and : waving his arms. When he.got close to Mm he found he was using very

profane language- He then got hold of the horse (a spirited one) and turned it round. Witness then took him in charge, and some one else took charge of the horse. He had not charged him with resisting the police, but he had to get the assistance of •two other, men to get him to the locker iipV>He-'.'appearedO completely mad, v andcontinued-toshout in the lock-up till 10 o'clock that night. To the accused the constable said the horse was secure when he arrested him.

Accused: I told you to clear away because I was in danger with the hone. . , i .& The Constable : The horse was secured all safe. Mr Gray said there was a pretty* heavy record against the accused, and being drunk while in charge of a horse was a serious offence. He would be fined £5, or one month's im-' prisenment. The accused declined to pay the ' fine, and was removed in custody. :; - crviii cases; "''.,, '"'ln the cases of Dr H. W. Campbell T. H. Sogers—Claim £2 2s, and same ~ iTDavid Smith —Claim £2 7s 6d, , ~ there .was no appearance of defendant, , i and judgment in each case was given i -for amount claimed and costs. Q. Bolton v. J, Malarkey—Claim; £lO 9s7d. .' \ ' Mr Aspinall appeared for defendant , ,lttid'applied for a remand for. a week ." ;«) he had only,just been instructed. C~ ; Plaintiff, did not object, and the case; was adjourned for a week, r .i:'; iThosliiWashington v. Caleb;Bate-; man—Claim £lB 14s 4d. D¥fenSaht' had paid. £B, he filed a set-off of £3 4s 2d for board, and. paid £3 3s into Court. Mr Hay appeared for plaintiff and Mr Aspinall for defendant. ; ,;.. Mr Hay opened the case, and j; called. Thomas Washington, who deposed that he was plaintiff, »nd lived in Temuka. - He was engaged by defenf dant as feeder of his threshing /"machine.. Defendant went to his; Siace one afternoon. , He said he had urt his hand, and wanted 1 witness |p ( go on as.feeder. • Witness' missus said . he was away at Bangitata. DefenJ ■■ dant said he could not wait. • Defendant sent up again that night, and witless went and saw him and was engaged. Nothing was said as to what he was to be paid. There were 24,600 buehels threshed. The prac- ' - tice was that feeders were' paid 15s / per 1000 bushels and found. v\With the eiceptiom of the feeder and driver the men found themselves, He had previous experience as .to the price paid for feeding. He was feeding with Mr Henry, or Orari, and got 15s and found. Had fed for Mr

Buxton, at Eangitata, last year, and got the same there. The majority of machine-owners were paying 15s and found. Mr A. M. Clark gave 16s. Defendant made no complaint.- He Maid he was satisfied with tie work, and said if witness was about next year he would give him the feeding to do. The only thing he said was that he...(witness) was charging too much. This was at the settling. , Defendant said he thought 12s would be enough, and witness find himself. Never heard of such a low price being given. ; • To Mr Aspinall: There might be some giving less, but he did not think so. Messrs Talbot and Lyon paid by the hour and gave the tucker in. He had heard that, but would not swear to'" it. He was working five or six weeks, and left of his own accord. It was not usual for the feeder to level » machine and steer it. The feeder would do so if he had time. The : stackman did it, and saved time. He levelled the machine sometimes, but did not steer her, as he was never asked to ; db so. "When they came to ;a settlement • Bateman said he would give him the same as Talbot and Lyon were giving. He did not know the hours he had worked, as he could not go back so far. He thought that 'where men were threshing good stuff the men that got paid by the hour and 2s per thousand would be better off than those paid by the thousand. They got Is per hour, and 2s per 1000 extra. "When witness was settling with defendant did not recollect his offering to give witness the same amount as the other men were getting and' 3s per 1000 extra. Asked for 15s when settling, and would not take less.

To Mr Hay: Some days they commenced work ats o'clock in the morning, and worked till 8 in the evening, 'Thought the average would be 12 hours per day, not counting Sundays.

i Geo, Preddy, threshing machine owner, deposed that he paid his feeder 15b p§r 1000 and he found himself. He could not state the current rate. One man would be dear at 12a, and another cheap at 15s. It was usual a few years ago for the feeder and driver to be found in tucker. His feeder had paid fwr his tucker for the last two years. It would depend upon the capabilities of the man what would be a fair rate per hour. To Mr Aspinall: His own man had been with him three years. He was a thoroughly practical man, and he could leave him in charge of the machine. He believed the priee in the district for a feeder was 15a. Never heard of any one being paid 12s. John,Douglas deposed that he had been employed 17 years with threshing machines as driyer. He had worked with Washington, who was a good feeder—a thoroughly practical man. He could drive or feed. Some gave 15s per 1000 for feeding, and some 16s. Feeder and driver got their tucker found. Washington got 15s and witness got £1 at Buxton's. It was not necessary for feeders to I steer the machine. Many good feeders could not steer. The driver j either steers the machine or shows the J feeder how to do it.

To Mr Aspinall witness said he had driven a portable engine for 16 years, and a traction engine for one. At Christy's Washington got 15s and witness £l. Washington was his son-in-law. He was prepared to prove Washington was capable of levelling the machine. Kobt. Pinckney, clerk for Mr A. M. Clark, deposed that Mr Clark sometimes paid his feeder 15s and sometimes 16s.

Plaintiff, recalled, said that when he left Bateman he raised no objection to his uot levelling or steering the machine, i

Por the defence Mr Aspinall called Caleb Bateman, threshing machine owner, who deposed that he made no agreement with the plaintiff. Did not ask him' to take the feeding. Told him in Temuka that he wanted a man either to feed or as water carrier. He said he would take the feeding in preference. He fed next morning. At the settlement he paid him off at the. same rate as the other men. An hour afterwards he saw plaintiff again, and he asked witness whether he was not going to allow him anything more for feeding. Witness said yes, he would give him the same as Talbot and Lyon;' They gave their men 2s per thousand extra, and he would give him 3s.

Turning to plaintiff: Tom, is that not right! Plaintiff: Yes, but I said I would not take less than 15s and found. Witness continued: On Monday he met Washington in an hotel, and was going to ,pay him, but he would not take Mt., He made all sorts of inquiries. , Saw Talbot and he said he paid 2s'per thousand, and witness said he'would pay no more. Never promised,to take plaintiff on next year. It was the duty of the feeder to level the machine, to oil her, set her, see that she was chocked all right, change jddles, and be in camp. He was rupposed to steer when the machine was being moved. Pltintiff fed the machine and oiled her twice a day. Last year he paid the feeder the same as, the rest of the men, and he was well satisfied. The rate was the same this year. All the men paid equal shares for the tucker.

Witness was tross-examined at some length, and in the course of it"he said he gave his men the preference whether they would be paid by the hour or by the thousand. He could not say that any man working under Mr Talbot's arrangements got more for the work than he would at 25s per thousand. No further evidence was called.

Counsel having briefly addressed the Court, judgment was given for plaintiff for amount claimed, less 5s 4d deducted on account of a clerical error, with costs, The set-off wos not allowed. The Court then rose.