RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1843, 22 January 1889, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka— Monday, Jan. 20,1889. [Before John Talbot and K. F. Gray, Esqs., J.P.’a,] CITIL CASES. Rawlings and Harte v. Thomas Cleary —Claim £5 12s. Judgment by default for the amountclaimed and costs. C. Story v. G. H. Reid—Claim 10s. Mr Aspinall appeared for the plaintiff, and there was no appearance of the defendant. Judgment was given fnr the amount claimed and costs. E. Brown v. G, H. Lynch Claim £l7 53 41. Mr Aspinall appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Hay for defendant. Mr Hay said he had just received instructions. As the accounts were very complicated he asked the case to stand over for a fortnight. Mr Aspinall objected to the adjournment. The defendant had been served on Thursday last, and had time enough to get up his case. He had been in the plaintiff’s office on Saturday and offered to settle it. -ii The Bench decided to grant the adjournment, as the time was short since the summons was served, the defendant to pay the coat of the court and solicitor’s fee. The adjournment was granted for 14 days. S. Norton v. D. Leach—Claim £l7 5s 7d. Mr Aspinall for plaintiff and Mr Hay for defendant. Mr Hay said in this case also he would apply for an adjournment, as an important witness could not be got to attend. Mr Aspinall objected to the adjournment, and after some argument it was decided to hear the case. The question in dispute was the rate of wages, S. Norton, the plaintiff, said that on April 16tb he entered into the employment of the defendant at 25s per week. On the Ist of October ha got 30s per week and remained until December 24. The sum of £4B was due to him in respect of wages, and Mr Leach rendered him a contra account, which was correct. To Mr Hay; Got the account last Ihursday week. Made no objection to it. In that account Mr Leach gives me credit for 20a a week for the first term and 25s for the seco'ad term. It did not occur to me to get an explanation from Mr Leach. Mr Leao’a said nothing to me about what he gave the last man. In October Mr Leac'a said he would give me a rise of 5a per week. [Plaintiff produced a note br jo k from wnioh it appeared the wagas 'were 25a per week.] Have kept no contra account against Mr Leach. Did not receive £2 on the 4th instant. I gave no notice to Mr Leach when I left. On the 24th I had sheep to kill in the morning, but he asked mo to leave them until evening. I said I would if he left me a horse' to ride over to the slaughter yard. He did riot, and I did not go. I told the boy he sent over to me I would do no more for him.

To Mr Aspinall : 1 observed alter receiving tho account the wages were wrong. Nothing was said about the rate of wages. With regard to the entry in the note book it was made about the second day I was in Mr Leach’s employ. I did no': receive the £2 on the 4th of January, I did not receive a penny since I left. Vallender was called on as a witness to pn jve what was a reasonable rate of wage s, but Mr Hay urged that point did not arise as there was a specified agreerae» it between the parties. • 7 he Court decided not to hear Mr v* Lender’s evidence until Mr Leach’s evidence had been taken. , -David Leach, butcher in Tcmuka, said: When the plaintiff entered my service I told him I would give him 20s a week. He said it was too little, but I said I could not give any more. In October he gave a week s notice, and said he wanted 30a a week. I told him I would give him 30s if he waited till harvest. The original arrangement was 20s, and (ho second 255. Ve no DO * :1C0 ' n November, but he said he expected a letter from Wellington and (old me if he got work he would eavo. On the fourth of January I gave him £2 f and booked it down in bis presence, [Produced book showing the plaintiff started work at 20s per week]. To Mr Aspioall: He started on a Monday, and I told him I wonld give him i^ 8 ’ le sanie 113 7 was giving McOalJum, He never gave me a week a notice only when I gave him the rise of os per week. When I gave him the 25s ho said when he got anything better he

would taka it. He asked me for the horso to go over to kill the sheep, and 1 told him if he had told me that in the morning I would have stabled a horse for him. I cannot explain how the entry in re the rate of wages in the book is dated 1889. S. Norton recalled, denied altogether that he received the £2 on the 4th of January last. Did not think ho had been in the office on that day. The Court said they had considered the case, and it was difficult to settle. They placed more dependence on Norton s entry 4han on Leach’s, except the £2 on the 4th Jantbftry. Judgment would be for the amount claimed, less one week’s wages in lien of notice and £2 cash on the 4th of January. Dr Hayes v. J. Grant—Claim £5 Is. Mr Aspinall applied for an adjournment. The defendant said he was summoned for £5 Is, and he only owed £l. The case was adjourned. Dr Hayes v. P. O’Meara—Claim £2los. The case was adjourned, Fred. Tozer v. T. Oleary—Clhim £4 18s 6d. Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs. Dr Hayea y. T. Burks—Claim £sl7s. Mr Aspinall appeared for the plaintiff and applied for an adjournment. The defendant alleged that the case Lad been settled. The adjournment was granted. The Court then rose.