RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2058, 12 June 1890, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Geraldine—Wednesday-, June ll. r [Before C.. A., Wray, Esq.,'R.■ '; ' " • civil "cases'. ' ' R. H, Postlethwaite v. J. M. Shepherd; - Mr J. Hay appeared for plaintiff. Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs. :s Wroathall Bros. v. T. 11. Wigley— Claim, £sß-10s for pigs -destroyed, by defendant,/].,. hlr Hay for plaintiff and Mr Raymond for defendant. - I)efehdant-filed'-a'set-off for £IOO for,damage dope to his land by plaintiff's, pigs.,; —.. ...... .., . , A. large-number of ;i witnesses were examined'for the plaintiff, after which the court adjourned for lunch, prior to defendant’s: 1 ; case;commencing. 0n resumingy Mr Hay stated that the parties had arranged to settle the matter by defendant agreeing- to pay the sum of £3B 10s, with witnesses'’ posts, £3 ss, solicitor’s fee, £2 2s, and court costs, £3 13s. [Mr 11. W. Moore and the Hon, T, Wigley now took their seats upon the bench.]' Michael Connolly v. John Albert — Claim £2 13s, balance of amount due for a set of harness. Mr E. Wilson Smith for plaintiff. Mr Hay appeared for the defendant, who filed a set-off for 119 hours overtime.

M. Connolly, saddler, stated that defendant worked for him and purchased a set of harness, which was not paid for. at the time. Plaintiff had .finally to obtain the money by .stopping the money off ..his .wages. - When plaintiff had a' squaring up he brought defendant in as owing £2 13s, which he did not dispute; and promised to send it up by Rennie. Heard of no dispute till plaintiff told him He should sutnmqns him if he did not pay- Defendant/jlheiiji senV- in' : a hill for; overtime, .Plaintiff had. never agreed to give defendant overtime. He was quite certain of that. Defendant wanted plaintiff to: kilow him to work up his harness.'in overtime, and r plaintiff refused*. toJd o .-sUi o - , - 1 . John Albert, 'sworn,' deposed that |he t ,,:ha i d,.', c 'fifbt .ftp ..work' in ■Geraldine jr :fac'!,,plaintiff i at‘ £2 8s ;per *week, and afterwards - went to ’ Winchester ! to - work ■ - for Connolly. Witness was to "get overtime., He had kept,a, strict account of his overtime, and Connolly had paid him various sums for overtime, till the end of July. The dispute appeared to be a mistake between the parties as to an arrangement for overtime and the price to be paidffor the harness. Defendant called H. Parker to prove the value of the harness. Albert Wilks was called to prove that he had been in the shop with Albert when he was working till nine or ten o’clock.

M, Connolly, recalled on the question of overtime, again swore positively that he had never made an agreement to pay for overtime. The case bccupiad some time, and their Worships, after conferring, said the evidence m the case was very conflicting, and they could only decide by .the probabilities that occurred in the base. - 4 ' They ‘decided to allow £1 3s on the claim itself. With regard to the cross-action did not consider it that overtime should beApaid/ In>thia case judgmant'Was given- defendant. Mr Wilson .Smith applied for and was granted a fee £1 Is. The court then rose'.