RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2010, 20 February 1890, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Geraldine—Wednesday, Reb, 19, 189®. [Before Captain C. A. Wray, R.M.] PROTECTION ORDER. Mrs J. A. Quinn asked for an order to protect her earnings and property from her husband, who had given way to drink of late. She also asked for the custody of her children. Applicant and Constable Willoughby both gave evidence as to Quin’s drinking habits. An order was made as desired, applicant to have the custody of the boy till he was ten years of age, and the girls till 18 years of age. CIVIL CASES. j A, McLean v. W, Postlethwaite— Claim £2 10s. for shearing 300 sheen ' at 16s 8d per 100. P Mr Raymond appeared for plaintiff Plaintiff, sworn, said that he started’ | shearing at defendant’s shed on Dec. I 9th last. He made no agreement as i ] to wages. He heard they wanted I' shearers, and went and saw defendant. who said he could start 1 fvrr 8 , 00 ? as he had the machine 1 (Wolseley) rigged up for him. ! .Nothing was said as to the wages to be given or terms, and plaintiff started 1 after breakfast. Shore till the follow- i Jug Monday. Spoke toMrPm.defchwaitethe i o lowing Mond iy. At the b= eakfasr hour ■ (old him he would have to leave a t dinner c tune, an he could nut make .wages at ihe v machine. Asked the shearers at the « dinner tints of the first day what the rate fi was Was told 163 6d y per 100. £ s I ostlethwuite said nothing about his I going awoy till dinner time, when he a JJ, 1 ??P L BCt y°« know the rules?'’ I Witness said he thought he did He said b any man leaving before the shearing h Sim S™??, mCno !’" fIMIS 8 s.ui til,a i„ i h , Witness made no agreement. Defendant a look plaintiff over to the agreement which n was siuck up m the shed. Witness saw I si the paper first when he had been shearing n a couple of days. His attention was not » directed to it. Took very little notice of tl u. Lhd not re«d it. Nothing more 91 phased, nnd Its left nt i'raner time. No d fault wfta found with the 300 ho ahore. In

Had been accustomed to shear with shears Neyer had an\ experience of such an agreement before an to no* being paid for not staying lid the t : me w-s finished. Had n cane coming off on the 24th of this month ir? connection with a shed down the Waitaki, where 24 of the she irera left in a body,, l he being 000 of them.

To Mr Raymond ; Th* case I allude to is one in which 24 of us left. One of the number is going nn with the case. A man was at Mr Post ! ethwaUo’a teaching me to shear with the Wolse'y machines. He only opened up the sheep and went over the first shoulder. It only took him a minute or two. Shore 300 sheep iu the first six days. Did not consider that a fair average. The agreement was placed in Ihe centre of the shed. Did not ask Mr Postlethwaite the rate he was going to pay when I went on. it was not customary to ask the principals, it was customary to ask the fellow shearers. Did not read the copy of the rules. Knew there were rules for shearing. It was customary to have these rules stuck up. It was also customary to road the rules out to any man coming on, I asked some of the shearers what sort of rules they wore. They said, anyman leaving before the shearing was over would not be payed till after the shearing. When about to go I asked Mr Postleth wait® and he said that anyman leaving beforo the shearing was finished would forfeit his money. Got on at Mr Tripp’s shed the day after I left Mr Postlethwaite’s. Shearers were wanted at Mr Tripp’s, and I got oh at the start. Shore through Mr Tripp’s shearing, finishing some time after the New Year. Have no idea whatever as to the number of sheep that were still to be shorn at Mr Poatlethwaite’s when I left. Did nut know how many ha had to begin with. Would not swear it was not the ten o’clock ‘‘smoke, oh!” when I spoke to Postlethwaite about leaving. Did not complain about the machines till I had shorn some six or seven days, as I expected to get better with practice, but got worse. Went to Geraldine and then to Mr Tripp’s. Did not inquire for shearing at any other station. Left Mr Postlethwaite's because L could not make wages with the machines. , To the bench : Shore through MrTripp’s | shearing. Do not remember exactly how long I was there. Thought Mr Postlethwaite would pay me after the shearing was over. Did not think I would not be paid if I left. Have shorn for three years in New Zealand, Mr Raymond said the defence was that McLean was engaged upon certain conditions, a copy of which was before the Court. Mr Postlethwaite would depose that when McLean came ha was a novice with the Wo seioy machine. Defendant paid a man named Barry 10s to teach plaiotff how to shear with the machine. Defendant saw plaintiff read the rules which were stuck up in a very prominent place where nobocy cou'd overlook them. Defendant saw plaintiff read these ruloa before ho started work. These rules were repeatedly stuck up In sheds, and it was the form of agreement coder which they shore. Mr Raymond contended that plaintiff saw that Mr Postleth waita’s shed was not likely to last much longer, and he also saw a chance of going to MrTripp’s shed and he did so. He pointed out that it wo s of the very highest importance to sheep farmers that these shearers should go right through the shearing, and that no unavoidable delay should take place. He pointed out that the claim was ma le out for so many sheep shorn at 16s 81 per hundred “as per agreement.” He considered it pretty clear in spite of the statement of the plaintiff to the contrary, that he obtained the conditions of the shearing from the rules posted up. Mr Raymond said it was a raatlter of principle rather than the amount that had caused Mr Postlelhwaite to allow the case to be brought. William Postlethwaite, the defendant, sworn, said he was the owner of the Raukapuka estate. During December lust he was shearing. Shore about 13,000 sheep altogether. McLean was not there when defendant opened, but came about Dec. 9th. Saw him in the shed for some time looking about, and then he come to witness and asked if he could get on the board. Told him he could goon, but before he star'ed he siw him reading I trie rules. Agreed with Birry, tho Aus- ) tralian, to teach him how to use the Wolseley machine for the aura of 10s. The rules were posted up ia a conspicuous place in the shed, where he could scarcely miasthem. Witness alwaps managed Ids own shed. Had had a good deal °of experience as a sheep farmer. Had always noticed rules posted up ia sheds similar to his own. Noticed the same sort of rules in Mr Tripp’s shed. McLean never said a word to witness about the rules, and made no request to witness to explain them. After plaintiff had been at work some liclle lime witness asked him how he the machines, and ha said he was getting on very well with them. He replied to the effect that he liked them verv well The next thing was that on the Monday plaintiff came to witness and said he w £ going to leave. Witness asked him why, and plaintiff said he was not doing well enough. Witness said no more just then but went and talked the matter over with his son. At 12 o’clock plaintiff came and said he was going to leave, and witness said, “ You have seen the ru es, and you know them,” Plaintiff said he would «o‘. paid after the shearing. Defendant s.nd ‘‘You had bettor look at them again.’’ Witness went to the rules with plaintiff took them down, and said, “ You see no man will get paid if he leaves before the shearing is finished.” Witness bore pointed out that it was extremely awkward for a sheep farmer if, for instance, he had sold his wool, and had to deliver it by n certain date. Ho filled his shed with men, and then perhaps owing to the opening of another shed, or some other c..use, they left, and thus placed him in a Ver Y awkward position. Another thing was, that when shearers had nearly hushed a shed, and then another large shed opened they would leave, and then a sheep farmer would bo i n a fix with the balance of his slmep ilaintiffi had expressed himself as perfectly satisfied with the machines ti l he left. Judging from what plaintiff had said in Court as to the time he had h en shearing witness thought ha would wot be able to shear more than 40 sheep >mr dav with tho ordio.-.ry shears. Witnsss Va showing the work to be done by’lbo nominees, said th«t nine men who with the exception of one, had never seen tho machines before this season shore dot sheep with nine machine* i- oiae d .ys. Witness had shown pininiiff the rule, and ha had still persisted in leaving,

and witness saw no more of him till after the shearing, when he came and asked for his money. Witness told him that as he had lift before tlio shearing was finished ho should not pay him, as he had told him at the time. Plaintiff said if witness did not piy he would make him, or show him up. Next thing witness got was a summons.

On nr. Id McLeod, lo a i shepherd at Raukapuka, deposed io being ia one o£ !be sheep pecs and overhearing ilia greater pirt of tbo eonv reution between Mr Post'eth waite and plaintiff as detailed by the last witness. He bad a great many years experience among sheep and shearing shads and had always seen rubs similar to those mentioned first read over before starting and then posted io a conspicuous place ia the shed. Plaintiff never denied in the hearing of witness having read the roles when told by Mr Postlethwaite he had read them.

H. Morrison and M, Burridgo, both old shearers, deposed to ru ! es similar to those mentioned above being posted in all sheds after being first read over to the men. The former said he should not care about trying to leave and then expect to get his money.

Mr Raymond addressed the Bench at some length on the evidence His Worship reserve 1 his decision. Gereldine Town Board v. John Flfield —claim £1 12s, for rant of oua of the board’s reserves.

Mr Riymond for p'ainliff. Mr W. S. Maslio, chairm .n of the board proyed the leasing of the sect : o i to defendant, and Mr 0. fi. Sherratl f .rmerly clerk, proved the occupation. Defendant pleaded infancy at the lime of tencUiing for the section, hut had no witnesses as to his age. The Board’s solicitor assured the Bench that provided the money' now duo was paid the boird was willing to rdeasa defendant of any further responsibility ia the matter.

Judgment was given for (he amount claimed and costs.

R. H. Pearpoiat v. A. Hoskins—Claim £2 7s 6d, goods supplied. Defendant acknowledged his liability. Piuintil said he was willing to allow defendant two months in which to mv the debt. v J

Judgment was given for the amount claimed and costa, and the Uoun rose.