RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Temuka Leader, Issue 2501, 11 May 1893, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Temuka —Tuesday, May 10, 1893. [Before C. A. Wray, Esq., R.M.] CIVIL CASES. Brosnahan & Power v. F. R. Oldfield Claim £4 14s, Defendant paid £3 10s into Court. H. Brosnahan, one of the plamtms, gave evidence that he and Power agreed to clear a paddock from rushes, etc., for £4. The work was done. First asked for payment about 2 mouths afterwards. Met defendant, who said that it was not done properly. Did not go back, as he considered the work was done satisfactorily, although as the rushes were deep grubbed some of the “stubs” might not have been completely burned out. When engaged in the contract was asked to do some further work at tieing hay. No agreement was made as to price. Received a cord of wood, value 10s, for which credit was given. By Defendant: Did not agree to clear the paddock fit for ploughing. There was no specification. Did not agree to work at a contract price for the grass tieing. The first day witness came to the grass tieing did not work; the machine was out of order. Helped to fix the machine. Lost the day all the same. Would have worked if there had been anything found him to do. By His Worship : Was not sure if he worked more than an hour. Kept about all day expecting to be started at any time. Worked all the next day. Considered it was Mr Oldfield’s fault if no work was done. Patrick Power gave evidence to the effect that the rushes were to be cut and burned. No mention was made as to ploughing, but understood that the clearing was preparatory to ploughing. His partner burned the rushes. Witness did not see the paddock afterwards. Did not understand anything had to be carted off. Went to the grass tieing. Worked about two hours and helped to get other men. Lost a day waiting for defendant. Trusted Brosnahan to see the paddock cleared. Brosnahan said it was cleared like the last one. The paddock was partly ploughed before witness left. By Defendant: It was the proper way to turn the roots of rushes up to the sun. Left them in rows. F, K. Oldfield, farmer, Temuka, said tha* k® let plaintiff’s a contract to cut rushph " T hich were to be burned afterwards/ Jonnu were “"LWT* them properly to the' BUn ' « • they would not burn if left so. 0 , fact, started to grow again. Afterwar as sent a man to the paddock with instructions to plough if the paddock was fit. There were a lot of stumps left. Saw Brosnahan afterwards and told him the work was not finished. Could not plough the paddock. Had offered to settle with them if they allowed two days work. With regard to the grass tieing witness claimed that they were engaged at the contract price paid to the other hands. Did not tell them to stop about. They could have worked half a day each at their contract. Next day they worked from about ten until four Witness was questioned by Brosnahan as to the method of putting the “ stubs ” together. Did not consider they could be burned as left. A. Bowman, ploughman for defendant : Was camped in the next paddock to where the rushes were cut. Saw the paddock after the burning. A lot of “stubs” were left. In a paddock previously cleared all the “stubs” burned away clean. By Mr Brosnahan: Had ploughed swamps before. The “stubs” were just flat roots. Did not notice any soil on them. Did not plough the paddock. Was not sent specially to see if it was done properly. Naturally looked to see what condition the land was in. By His Worship : There were a lot of roots left. They would have burned all right. Thought it likely one man could finish it in a day. Edward Radburnd, farm hand for defendant : Remembered the plaintiff’s coming to tie grass. The machine was out of order. About twelve o’clock the defendant left for Timaru. Did not expect there would be any work done after dinner. The paddock where plaintiffs were working was about two miles away. By Mr Brosnahan : Mr Oldfield left for Timaru after dinner and returned about six o’clock. Did not yoke the horses after he came back. Kid not hear Mr Oldfield say anything about not working again that day. . His Worship said it was evident the burning was not done properly. Should knock offlOs from the ojntraot and 6s off the days’ work. This would leave £3 10s for the contract, 18s for the day’s work, less 10s for firewood. Judgment for £3 18s, less £3 10s paid into Court. A. Webster v. T. Connolly—Claim £3 10s for wages. Mr Salraond for plaintiff. This was a case in which evidence was . •>+. gome length. The plaintiff, taken he had lived at Mr aged 16, sta. • weeks, and worked at Connolly’s for seven . 16> and miscellaneous jobs. Mis a 0 neQ pj e he had previously worked for othe.. * ■>. at wages ranging from 10s to 15s a ween, and board, and was now earning 18s a week, without board, at a flax mill. Defendant stated that the lad had been in the habit of getting occasional meals at his house, and sometimes did an odd job. He had never been regularly engaged, and had never been looked upon as one of the farm hands, he came and went as he liked. His Worship considered that the claim had not been established, and gave judgment for the defendant. The Court then rose.