RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2078, 29 July 1890, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tjbmbka— Monday, July 28, 1890,

(Before A. M. Clark and W. Upton Slack, Bsqs, J.P.’s.) CIVIL CASES. TC. Cameron v. G. Hitchcock— Claim £1 8s 3d. Plaintiff stated that he was engaged by defendant at 15s a week and board. After working a week and days, he had a row and was ordered off the work. Prior to being ordered off defendant gave him a week’s notice. Plaintiff was willing to go if he got his money. Had not been paid. Replying to defendant: Did not know it was customary to give a week’s notice on either side. Admitted using abusive language when ordered off. Defendant called Christopher Russell, who stated that he was working in the paddock at the flax mill when defendant came up and told Camerom to take a week’s notice. Cameron said it just saved him the trouble. He used bad language. By the Bench : Expected he used bad language because he got a week’s notice. Hitchcock said to Cameron that he thought him a better man than he had found him. By plaintiff : You were leaving the ground when he gave a week’s notice. Hitchcock put you down. By the Bench: The row originated in plaintiff using bad language. Hitchcock said that he would let him know who was boss. Defendant said that he had engaged the plaintiff at 15a a week and found. Had occasion to find fault with him, and gave him a week’s notice. Told him at the time to go and finish the work well. He refused, after some angry words, and left the job. If he had come for his money on pay-day he would have received it, less a week’s wages in lieu if notice. Albert Cameron said his brother had engaged him to work for Hitchcock by the week. Had refused to work at a certain job because it was too wet. Had left without notice. The wages due to him were included in the claim. By the Bench: Was engaged by my brother. He told me Hitchcock would pay. Judgment for plaintiff for 6s Bd, being days’ labor. No costs would be allowed. The Bench were clearly of opinion that a week’s notice should have been giyen. M. Scannell v. John McGrath — Claim £2. Mr Salmond for defendant. Plaintiff stated that at the time he was the licensee of the Arowhenua Hotel the defendant had borrowed a pound from him, and subsequently two other sums of the same amount. Had been paid 20s since. He produced the counter-book in which the amount had been entered at the time. By Mr Salmond: The amount was lent on Sunday, Feb. 19fch. Defendant came there as a casual traveller. He had some drink there. He borrowed a pound, and might have spent some of it in the house. The first pound was lent at about 1.30, He left at about 7.30. Did not know what he did with the money. Presumed he spent it. There were some nine or ten people there. The other money was lent during the afternoon. Did not know what he was going t© do with it. He was sober. Had been told he had 17a when he left the hotel. McGrath had told him when he borrowed the money that he wanted to treat his friends' When he received the pound back McGrath told him he would give him the other soon. He had been on the spree a bit, but had money at fixed deposit, but it would soon mature. Owen Walsh remembered being at the Arowhenua Hotel. Saw McGrath receive two pounds from plaintiff. McGrath during the day “ shouted ” once or twice. By Mr Salmond: Did not know what McGrath wanted the money for. Plaintiff had another witness, but did not desire to call him. He would allow defendant to call him if necessary, Mr Salmond said that the claim was an illegal one r It was evident that the money had been lent for the purpose of allowing the defendant to spend it in drink, which was an illegal act. Tlje law of England did not allow money to be lepfc for a criminal purpose. He would call defendant, but relied not on the facts of the case, but upon the law. John McGrath recollected going to the Arowhenua Hotel about 4 o’clock on Sunday afternoon. Had 10 or 121

shillings when he went there. ’ Later' on borrowed a pound. Had several drinks. At the time he received the pound nobody was present. Borrowed the money to procure drinks, as he had run short. Had never borrowed other money. Paid it back the week following. Met him near Franks’s brewery, and gave him the pound. He ' said, “ Tou’re a gentleman.” Never heard anything more about the claim for about two years. By plaintiff: No reference was made to the balance when the pound was paid back. It was not usual for him to spend large sums when on the spree. O. Welsh, recalled: Saw Mr Scannell give defendant two pounds. It was between one' and two o’clock when McGrath came to the hotel. f Mr Salmond again drew attention to the purpose, for which the money was lent. It was distinctly for an illegal purpose. • I Mr Scannell said that he supposed publicans did rot steal their money any more than lawyers. It would be hard if they could not recover it when lent.

Mr Salmond said it was a device to evade the Act relating to the supply of drinks. Ihe Gaming Act supplied a case in point. Mr Salmond farther said that if the Bench decided for plaintiff they would sanction an illegal act. Mr Clark could net allow ,Mr Salmond to address the Court in that way. The Bench were ef opinion that the Act referred to by Mr Salmond did not apply in this. ease. Judgment would be for two pound* and costs.

Same v. Eedmund Burke—Claim 20s for cash lent.—Judgment for plaintiff by default. Same v. J. Cope (Native)—Claim £5 3s 6d.

This was a claim for money lent at different periods upon the security of certain orders which have proved valueless.

Defendant stated that he had been several times at plaintiff’s hotel on the spree. Had given some orders which had been honored. Plaintiff said two orders had been honored. The third had not. Defendant, sworn: The first order produced has my signature. The second signature was not his. Plaintiff asked the Court to adjourn the case to enable him to prove that at the time the second order was given negotiations were pending for the lease of land from defendant by Mr O’Mara,

The case was adjourned for a fortnight. J. Tangney v. Jeremiah Moynahan —Claim £1 15s 6d.—Judgment for plaintiff by default. The Court then rose.