RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1986, 24 December 1889, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temwka— Monday, Deo. 23, 1889. [Before Captain 0. A. Wra j, R.M.] UNREGISTERED Jt>o®. A. W. Gaze was charged with having an unregistered dog in bis possession. Mr Salmond said it was a dispute between the two Town Boards, the Arowhenna Board believing that it bad a right to register Tomuka dogs. Mr Gaze said he was not there to settle the dispute between two boards. He was summoned os a private individual. If be had to answer for the board be wished to have time. The case was adjourned till next caurtday, STEALING FLOWERS. Alexander Webster was charged with having stolen flowers from the garden of W. Sweet, on the 2nd tost. The accused, a boy about IS yeare «f age, said another boy sent him in for them. William Sweet said that on the 2nd of Dec, he saw a boy about the sizi ef the defendant in his garden. Three more . boys were on the road. He destroyed i some roe* trees. The br y was about five minutes in the garden. He did about 5> i worth of damage. He did not value the i roses at anything. The broking of (he trees he valued at 9b, 1

Fred. Morris said he followed the beys, and the boy before the court, was the smallest. He caught him, and he gave the nMne of Sullivan.

Constable Morton said the boy had been convicted twice before, first for setting gran on fire, and second for stealing wool. His mother was a widow and had no control over him, and he believed if sent to the Industrial School he could be made a good boy of yet. In answer to thecourt accusedsaid Bloomfield sent him into the garden, and that he was IS years of age. Hs was working at Bruce's Mill, and earning 7« pei week. His Worship ordered him to sit down till the rising of tho court, when he was discharged, after having been warned that if brought up again be would be severely dealt with. CITIL CASES. J. Meyer v. Ragu Williams Claim £2 Bs, for rent. Mr Sairaond appeared for the plaintiff. The plaintiff proved the case. The defendant said the plaintiff guaranteed the house as not subject to fijods. He was washed out of it. The plaintiff denied that anything was said about floods.

Ragu Williams said that after he was there a neighbor told him the flood came to the house. He went tc Mr Meyer and he guaranteed the fljnd would not come there. The floo i came and he h«d to leave it. The fl rod cams in 6 inches high, and he lost £3 worth of clothes and other things which were washed away. His Worship said he must p*y his rant. Judgment for (he amount claimed and costs.

E. Vallentler v. A. Holroyd—Olsim £5 6a 10d. Mr Salmond appeared for plaintiff. Judgment for the amount claimed and costa,

G. H. Mog'idge v. W. Eaglaston— Claim £2 2a 3d.—Judgment for the amount claimed and costa, to be paid in instalments of 5a per week. G. H. Mogridge v. J. Taylor—Claim £1 10J. —Mr Salmond appeared for the plaintiff—Judgment by default for the amount claimed, and costs.

H. Long v. Thos, Simpson—Claim £2B. Mr Salmond appeared for plaintiff and Mr Hay for defendant. H. Long, farm laborer, said he was hired on the 22nd of May last by the defendant. . The arrangement was that he would b« paid what other men were getting, that i->, £1 per weak. Stayed 29 weska all but a few days, When leaving the defendant offered him 15a first, and next 17s, but he refused it. ne had be*n ploughing and harrowing. Simpson had a man named Barr at the same time and he paid him £1 per week. To Mr Hay: The first time ha saw Simpson was #t Ashburton. The arrangsment in re wages took place in Mr Fenton's on the 22nd. H# was as good a ploughman as Barr. The witness wjs cross-examined at great length without shaking his evidence. Matthew Barr: Werked for Simpson at the same time as Long, and got £1 per week. Long worked satisfactorily and did a jolly good day’s work. Simpson found fault with him once, but Simpson found fault with witness at the same tim«. To Mr Hay: Have been 13 years ploughing. Long ploughed good enough for common ploughing. Saw Simpson regulating the plough for him. To Mr Salmond; Left Simpson because of some disagreement about the ploughing. Thos. Simpson, defendant, stated that on 21st May last met Long and mads arrangements. He was to go on trial, and if ha could manage be was to get what was fair. It was net true that he agreed to give him the same as the other man, He did net know how to yoke the horses, end witness stayed half a day with him. He

did not make a bad shape after chat. Witness always had to alter the plough for him. Barr is a good ploughman and was worth 5s more than Long. Long never complained of not getting money. He went three times away. His team was idle in his absence. Once he left on a Thursday night and came back on a Sunday, Witness offered him los but he refused it. Was inconvenienced by hia leaving. Paid Barr £1 and 15s was good wages for Long. Some paid as low as 10«,

To Mr Salmond: Nothing was sa'‘d about wages the first day, and witness never offered to pay him like the ether men. 15s was a fair wages ; never offered him 17s.

John Talbot, farmer, said the ordinary rate of wages for good ploughmen was £1 par week. It was vary hard to aay what the rate of wages an incompetent man was worth. If employed at all aa a ploughman he eensidered him worth £l. His Worship said taking the evidence of Mr Talbot and Barr be could do nothing but give judgment for the amount claimed, and eosts, less one week for absence from work. J. H. Jackson v. H. Lee Claim £2 Bs.

Mr Hay appeared for plaintiff and Mr Salmond for defendant.

The plaintiff said the amount was due for work done, To Mr Salmond Witness ®wod 16s for liquors. Mr Hay urged that a contra could not be recognised under the Licensing Act. If money was placed in Lee’s band?, and a liquor bill was ran up against it be would have to pay the money. He quoted section 133 in support of bis con* tention.

Mr Salmond urged that the question before the court was altogether different. Thera was no reason why the two accounts should not be set against each other.

Examination continued: Witness did not know he got any liquor or credit on June 14. Never got any account. Don’t know anything about it, Mr Salmond ; Now, here is an account for £3 8s 6d, and you say you owe only 16*! Witness: That’s all I owe. 1 borrowed £3 from defendant, and promised to pay the balance of it. On November 18th did not say anything about the liquor account, and never mentioned the thing. The witness was examined at great length with regard to several items, but he said he knew nothing whatever about them.

E. IT. Brewer : Was in charge of the Crown Hotel on July 16. Jackson was in the hotel on that day, and had several drinks, and had 7s marked against bins. On another night, August 12, be had 5s worth of drink. Would swear that Jackson did not pay a pound, or cash a pound, m the house that night.

Patrics McKernahan : Was a plumber by trade, Remembered being in the

Crown Hotel on several occasions with Jackson. Recollected one occasion when Jackson lost two games with witness and one with Beaumont. He was supplied wiih 3s in his presence. Did not see him pay anything on that occasion. Henry Lee; Plaintiff owed £3 8s 6d for drinks. The account produced was correct. When Jackson promised to repay £3 ient he (Jackson) never mentioned the contra account. On Nov. 18th asked about the £3, He said : ‘ I know 1 ought to have paid you.’ He agreed to pay at tho end of the month, with interest. The Tqiior bill, he said, could;be squared with the boots. In July the account was rendered. It was then about 16s. He (Jackson) suggested that witness should be supplied with boots. 7a were added to the account, and on the Saturday following the order was given for a pair of boots and shoes. He brought the ehoasi. to the hotel on Sept. 14th, The account was added up and a balance struck. On October 12th a pair of boots was supplied for 17a 61, and plaintiff received credit for 33a 6i in the ledger. To Mr Hay : The drinks were first put * on the slate, and copied daily into the day book. Remembered the day of tho party. Did not have any part of a pound (hal Jackson had that night as Jackson said that be had rent to p\y on July 12. Jackson owed 16s, The account was mentioned and Jackson su'd that he might give him an order for a pair of boots. Oo Sept. Igfh the account was 325. Jacksou hud never repudiated owing tao'e than 16s. Did not furnish the account because he was advised to bring his books into court. The items were here compared and found to tally in daybook and ledger. Could not have made up the accounts without the books. Made no mistake.

±Jy the Bench : There was a general understanding that boots were to be made and the costa set off as a contra. Had always had to pay money before. Mr Salmond claimed that all the evidence went to prove the (ruth of Lee’s statement, and it was suppoited by two witnesses. He asked the Bench to believe that Jacksons evidence was false. It merely remained to consider the legal aspect of the case. If the settlement was illegal that would not render the settlement void. He argued that the transaction was not illegal. It was not accepting goods for liquors. It was (hat the liquor account was set off against work dose. If a grocer supplied groceries to the hotelkeeper and the hotelkeeper eupp ied drink to the grocer they could not settle the account if Mr Hay’s interpretation of the Act was taken.

Mr Hay said with reference to the amount of the liquor bill it had not been rendered. It may be right or it may not,and he believed both parlies stated what they thought a fact. The argument of hie learned friend was that there was an antecedent agreement that the liquor bill should stand against the work. Such an agreement was absolutely- illegal and was void, because the Act required that nothing but money should be paid for drinks.

His Worship said the object cf the Act was to prevent publicans giving drink on credit. The only means by which drinks could be set off was on account stated, but in this case it was an honorable understanding, and as that was not carried out they must fall biek on the law. To take anything but money for drink was illegal, and he must give judgment for the plaintiff fer the amount claimed. W. C. W. Fendall v. Public TrusteeClaim £l4.

Mr Cuthro for plaintiff and Mr Salmond for defendant.

This was a case in which the plaintiff sued for the funeral expanses of one Miss E. M, S*an, who died in 1884. The evi. dence of plaintiff was taken in Hokitika. The defendant paid £4 into court, and lodged a set-off for wrongful conversion of the personal property of deceased, Mr Cathro objected to the set-off on the ground that there could be not set-off in respect of a tort, and that the claim sought to be set-off should be of a liquidated nature.

Mr Salmond, in reply, cited the case of Mcloughlan v. Philips, 6, N.Z.L.K., 352, to show that in matters of procedure the court could exercise discretion in the matter, and that the Supreme Court would not interfere.

The case was argued at soma length, rind the court decided in fivor of Mr Oathro.

W. N. Oathro produced a letter written by Mr Wilson stating there were assets amounting to £l9 10 i in the estate.

Henry Williams, undertaker, said the average price of a funeral was £3 and upwatds; £6 was a fair average. The ground and digging came to £3 2s 6d. £l4 was excessive.

Pleasant Foint, remembered cropping one acre land for Mr Feudal. It was a crop of mangolds and cirrots, and he took the carrots for £1 17s. Mr Feudal took the mangolds,. They all amounted to £4 13s. The land belonged to Miss Swan.

Mr Oatbro objected lo this evidence and declined to cross-examine, but said he was quite willing to accept judgment for €lO,

Judgment was accordingly given for £lO and costs, including solicitor’s fee. Slosinger v. A. R. Allan—Claim £4 17s. Mr Salmond appeared for the defendant.

This was a Dunedin case, the evidence being taken here for transmission to the southern Court,

A. R. Allan stated the plaintiff came to his shop and wanted witness to bey some of his horse medicine, : Witness refused. He came again, but said he would make up an order, and what witness could not sell he would take back. Agreed to that. He sent a case of goods a few days afterwards. Sold none of them ; bad got them in the shop still. He could have them back at any time. He never asked to have them sent back to him. The invoice was the only statement he over got; received ‘accounts rendered.’ Received a notice through the Mercantile Gazette demanding payment, ' Answered that the goods were sent to be sold on commission, and told Slesinger he could have them as soon as he liked. Never heard any more until summoned. The Court then rose at 2 p.m.