RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2285, 26 November 1891, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka—Tuesday, Sept. 24th, 1891. [Before C, A. Wray, Esq., R.M,I cim CASES. D. Bryant v. T. Langdon—Claim £1 4s. Plaintiff stated that he was engaged on the 21st October by defendant. Defendant said he should require a month’s trial. Plaintiff thought a fortnight would be long enough. Defendant said either a fortnight, or a month. The wages were to be 12s a week, and, if he suited, 15s a week. He started on a Tuesday. At the end of a fortnight defendant gave him 24s and gave him a week’s notice. This was on a Monday. On the Saturday he considered his time was up, but Langdon objected, and said he would have to work up till the Tuesday. T. Langdon, defendant, said plaintiff came to work ou a Tuesday. He was not a satisfactory man, and witness gave him notice to leave at the end of the mouth. At the same time gave him 24s for wages. On a Saturday he wanted to leave. Told him he could do so if he liked, but ho would not get paid unless he worked until the Tuesday, which would complete his month. Offered him 12s, which he refused. Now paid the amount into Court. Judgment for amount paid into Court, without costs. P. McGuire v. S. Breadley, claim £SO for damages caused through an assault. Mr Salmond for plaintiff and Mr Hay for defendant. Philip McGuire, the plaintiff, said he was working for the defendant on the 2nd September. Was unloading potatoes at at the railway station. Breadley and Neil Campbell were there, the former looking on. Breadley said he (witness) was very slow, and would have to shape better. He threatened to strike him if he did not shape better. Asked him to pay him his wages and let him go. He said; “ Philip, I see you are determined to go, and if you ‘ spike’ me in the work like that, I’ll ‘ spike ’ you for working for anyone else.” He came to the dray and took hold of witness’ right hand and gave it a twist. He made witness’ arm quite powerless. Got off the dray and gave him the hook he was using. He told witness to take the horses round, and he did so and fed them, but his arm was. getting so bad that he had to leave one of them uncovered. In the evening witness told him he was powerless, and he would have to look after the horses himself. He rushed at witness and called him abusive names. Asked him for his money, and to be allowed to go. In the morning defendant asked him why he had not covered the horses. Told him he was unable through his treatment, and that he was a naughty man. He said if there ; was any back jaw ho would screw wit- : ness’ other arm and put him under an ■ apple tree. Left defendant’s employ and ! was paid. Went next day to Temuka, 1 1 and afterwards to Timaru, where hej < received attention from Dr Thomas. Didf 1

not find the medicine do him any good, and after seven days went to Waimate, and was attended in the hospital by Dr Barclay. Then went to Ashburton, and was treated by Dr Trevor. Had not been able to do any regular work. If he had not been injured would have been shear* ing. Could have earned from 15s to 18s a day. Would have had about three months’ work. Had incurred about 22a or 25s expenses for medicine, and weekly attendance in the hospital at the-rate of 20s a week, in all 40s. On the 2nd September the boy Campbell was in the dray, and was a witness to the whole transaction.

By Mr Hay: First came to Mr Breadley in April last, and got a job at 20s a week. Was the saine Mr McGuire who stood for Parliament. It was a fact that at one time witness was in the asylum. Left Mr Breadley after thirteen weeks, and was subsequently re-engaged. Was-sura of the date of the assault. It was on the 2nd September. Campbell was there. Breadley did not find fault with him for driving on the railway line. The horses did not fall. Witness told him he, would not work overtime for him or any man in New Zealand. When Breadley came up the dray was unloaded with the exception of four bags. Until ha strained witness’ hand did not refuse to work. : He was standing on the tier of potatoes, and witness was on the dray. He reached out and gave witness’ hand a pull and a twist. Thought he was going to shake hands. Witness sang out loud, for he was hurt. It was an oath. Did not do any. more work after leaving the dray, except to put the horses up. Did not see Mrs breadley that night. Did not say anything about , being hurt until next morning. About 8 o’clock on the night of the 2nd told . Breadley he would have to look after the horses himself. It was then he rushed at > him and called him a crawler. There were people present. Enquired next day for a doctor at Temuka and could not get ; one. Was not sure if it was the next s day he left for Timaru. Used some ‘ electric essence as well as some lotion given by Dr Thomas. About the 9th of' > | September saw Dr Barclay. When in I Timaru stayed at Worry’s boardinghouse. ( Only knew the proprietress. Stayed at Waimate not quite a week. Dr Barclay allowed him to, go. Witness thought i he ought to have got better quicker. , Used more electric essence. Then went . to Ashburton, and was attended a week . by Dr Trevor. Had receipts for 20s from Ashburton Hospital and 18s from Wai- ’ mate. The receipts; were dated October 1 12 and September 15; respectively. Neil Campbell: On ttye 2nd September , was working Game to . the railway station on the top of the dray. When he got to the . station started to cover the potatoes. Breadley came up, i and started about the horses being driven over the line. /.McGuire said he could 1 not turn without bringing the leaders oyer the line,-, McGuire after a few 1 words, asked “ Who is going to pay for 1 overtime?” Breadley said he was not worked much overtime. Did not see Breadley catch hold of McGuire, as he (witness) was at the back of potatoes. . Heard McGuire say something about his arm. Did not know distinctly what it , was. Did not see either afterwards. , Did not know exactly what day it was. l McGuire left next morning. Did not hear any threatening language. By Mr Hay: Heard McGuire call Breadley a ——Could not say if there, was any harm in the horses going on thgk . line. Did not hear any complaint abofit/ » McGuire being slow. There was a man . named Sullivan assisting to unload the dray. Did not hear . any words as to who was to unload the dray. # Never heard any complaint by ■ McGuire about his arm. Saw him take the horses away. Did not notice anything wrong. Next day He was holding it up. Did not hear anything about fighting or paying wages. Did not see or hear Breadley offering to fight or threatening him in any way. Next day Mr Breadley drove the horses himself. The day of the row Breadley finished the unloading, as McGuire had knocked oft Herbert Clifford Barclay, duly qualified medical practitioner, in charge of the Waimate Hospital: On the 9th was consulted by McGuire. He complained of great pain below the Shoulder joint and in the joint. The joint was swollen and tender, any movement of the joint caused great pain. He complained of a deep-seated pain in the arm at the joint of attachment of certain muscles and great tenderness. He was practically unable to move the arm on account of stiffness. The injury consisted of a severe sprain. It was quite possible some of the muscles would be ruptured. The cause would bo a severe wrench, possibly such as was described. It waa probable two hands would be used. Witness here described the action of the joint and the way it would be affected. It could not be done by a man himself. If a man was simply pulled out of a cart such an accident would not happen. There was a movement of the joint out of its ordinary range. An injury like ‘ that would take a long time to recover. An average estimate would be about three months. He was an unruly patient, and had notions of his own. The use of electric essence would probably neither do good nor harm. He neglected to use those things which would have assisted his recovery. He retarded his own recovery. He would have recovered under proper treatment in three months. The joint required active treatment. H« would require to go under chloroform to have the injuries reduced. By Mr Hay; He was in the hospital six days. He was perpetually dissatisfied and would not carry out instructions. He would not keep splints on and ha 4 rubbed his arm and moved it. He should have given it rest. A sprain of such a nature would certainly take three months to recover. It was not altogether reasonable to think that he had injured the arm himself. Assuming he treated it badly ha lengthened the period of recovery. If hfl had given it a fair start it Was that it would have recovered sooner. It seemed to be a wrench. It was not a physical impossibility that such an injury could be caused by oneself by accident. A merely pulling forward could not produce the injuiy. The injury could be produced by the body turning as much as by the arm being turned. The injuiy could be produced at arm’s length, fit Breadley seized McGuire’s hand and polled and McGuire’s body turned the accident could have happened. There must be a lateral as well a# a direct motion.

For the defence, Mr Hay called Samuel Breadley, who said he knew the defendant McGuire, who worked for him. The day the row occurred was Monday, August 31st. Got on all right with McGuire. On the day in question McGuire was bringing a team down with a load of potatoes. Saw him come up to the station, and sung out to him not to drive .the horses across the line. He did it. Galled to him to stop. One of the leaders got broadside on the rails. Was asked by McGuire who was to pay for his —-- overtime. Told him he did not think he was much troubled about overtime, and told him to unload the potatoes. He refused. Was on the potatoes, which were stacked two bags high. The dray was backed up to it. When he said he would not work any more and called names, told him to come off the dray, and he (witness) would do it himself. This was repeated twice. Reached up his right hand and caught plaintiff’s right hand and pulled him straight towards him. He came off on the bags and then to the . ground. Left go of him before he reached the potatoes. There was no wrench and he did not cry out. He made no resistance. He went up on the dray and went on unloading, and afterwards took the horses away. He did not complain about his arm being bad. That night he said he (witness) could look after the horses for he (plaintiff) would work no more for him. Never called him “a crawler.” Had never spoken to the man from that time to the present. Did not speak to him the next morning. Believed he left by the first train. Heard nothing about the hurt until the 29th October, when he received a letter from a solicitor. He was a good worker except about horses. He was rather eccentric. He never asked to go until about a week before, and there was no truth about witness “ spiking ” him. By Mr Salmond : There were two bags of potatoes on the tailboard, and . McGuire would be about fifteen inches higher than witness. McGuire, when wit- ' . ness got hold of him, simply stepped down. -He did not make any resistance, nor wrench himself. Was quite sure he did not . inflict the injuries described. From the .. way the horses were standing Campbell ■ was nearer McGuire than witness, and might have heard a remark about the • '*_ arm. Was positive McGuire finished the ( unloading. Witness took off about half the load. That night he did not com- 1 plain of his arm. Was positive he did not speak to him in the morning. The ! horses were all covered. If McGuire ; said he spoke to him that morning, or said anything about putting him under "an apple tree he was telling a deliberate ' falsehood. Was sure McGuire did not ask for his wages next morning, ! By Mr Hay: He was paid by one of ' witness’s sons. Did not know where Sullivan was, who was helping. By his Worship : Was rather annoyed , about his driving over the line, but was ‘ not violent. ' Alice Breadley, wife of defendant, 1 said she remembered the day McGuire ' went away. Saw him at breakfast. Noticed nothing about hia arm. Had seen him the evening previously at tea. 1 He did not complain then. When he ; went away had no notion there was any- 1 ' tiring wrong. * John Breadley, son of defendant, said . he saw plaintiff the morning after the row, and told him to come and get his t wages. Did not see anything wrong, and , ’ did not know he was going to leave until , i, he was told to give him the message about the wages. , Neil Campbell, recalled: After seeing ( McGuire on the ground did not see him again on the dray. Did not know who ] finished the unloading, as he had to go j away. < Mr Hay said that he should like to < have the evidence of Dr Thomas, and ] after a little discussion the case was s adjourned until next Court day. Vallender & Watt v. Mabin—Claim ! 435, balance of account. Defendant withdrew a cross action and paid 14s fid ! into Court. ‘- Mr Salmond for plaintiffs and Mr Hay for defendant. j Evan Vallender, one of the plaintiffs: 1 On the 20th November, 1890, sold certain sheep to defendant. They were sold in j paddock, and were to be about 25 at 5s \ each. They were paid for before de- j livery. He took delivery next morning, , and said there were 26. He borrowed 5s at the time, and was to give a good cross- { bred in exchange for the odd sheep and 5 the ss. Had never received the sheep, { but Mabin never disputed the liability. , On a subsequent date, June 2, 1891, bought 41 sheep, but only received 40. z They were Mabin’s sheep, but were paid for through the N.M. &A. Co., who said i they .had better settle it between them- ( selves. Mabin promised to. leave him ' s two sheep in the pound, and witness went ' for them and they were not left. Next f morning Mabin told him he could get two sheep at his farm. In September , bought more sheep, and reminded him of j ;the two sheep owing. Was then 3 promised two at 145.3 d. By Mr Hay: Had not included the < two sheep in any account sent to Mabin. £ First heard that 26 were delivered either i the same night or next day. On the ] occasion of the second transaction took i delivery himself. Paid for the 41 sheep on the understanding that Mabin was to ( adjust the number. The sheep were j then 12s, Did not claim two sheep at j 14s 3d on account of two being in iamb 1 out of a lot purchased. - For the defence Mr Hay called ] James Mabin, dealer, TemukaOn the ’ 20th April bought 30 sheep at 5s from 1 VaUender, and got 30. There was no mistake in the transaction. Was not aware of any claim for sheep except in respect of,some ewes which proved.to be in lamb. On June 2nd put sheep into the yards to be sold through Messrs Mundell & Co., whose man counted them. Knew nothing of short delivery until to-day. Did not recollect promising any sheep. ~

J3y Mr Salmond: His bank-book showed that £7 10s was paid for the first lot of sheep. Vallender bought them back, but not at the same price. Did not promise to give him a crossbred sheep and only borrowed 2s from him. Had sometimes lent him (plaintiff) money. Yallender had not complained of short delivery in respect of the transaction with Messrs Mundell & Co. Never promised to leave him two sheep at the pound or told him to go to his house for them. Pid not promise ou the road to the

Washdyke to give him two. If plaintiff 3 said thafhe was mistaken. . His Worship said there seemed a , conflict of evidence. He thought it i better for plaintiff to accept judgment for i amount paid into Court, and accept a i nonsuit for the remainder. > This course was agreed to and the Court rose.