ENTERTAINMENTS.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2519, 22 June 1893, Page 2

ENTERTAINMENTS.

The Marian Willis Dramatic Company appeared in the great Australian drama, “ Madame Midas,” last Tuesday evening, in the Volunteer Hall, Temuka. There was a fair attendance, and the applause was enthusiastic. “ Madam Midas ” is an adaptation of the novel of that name. A woman has been ruined by a drunken husband, whom she discards on striking a rich lead in her mines. A villainous Frenchman, who has escaped from New Caledonia, to which place he has been transported for having poisoned his sweetheart in France, plays the chief part. He induces the daughter of the local clergyman to elope with him, and afterwards deserts her; he robs Madam Midas of a nugget worth £ISOO under circumstances which make her suspect her her own husband. He makes the husband believe tbit he had killed a man whom he himself (the Frenchman) had killed, bu t eventually he is completely entrapped and ho poisons himself. There is also a, doctor wh.O hf ih i° ve with the clergyman’s daughter, ,a f.qnW maid and a swell who sells himself to he?-' fp» the sake of her £40,000, and some other characters in the piece, waking in all a highly interesting drama, The piece was certainly well acted. In the first apt, Miss Marian Willis, in the scene in which she orders her husband off her land, gave a powerful rendering of her part, and it is not good for the success of the play that she has not more to do in it. The chief part is enacted by the Frenchman, who was represented by Mr J. F. Keogh, and he certainly gave a cjover delineation of it. He was the cool, calculating villain from beginning to end, who, as he says himself, never carries such a thing as a conscience about with him. Miss JB. Brandt, as the old maid, was immense, and so was Mr Coulter as the dude. Mr Byous, to whom we did not do justice in our last issue, took several parts in a remarkably successful manner. He is the equal of any wo have - seen for some time in portraying the low villain. The other parts were well sustained, and the play was capitally acted throughout. As an afterpiece an exceedingly laughable comedy entitled “ Confusion ” was given. In this Miss Marian Willis, Mr Coulter, Mr Lyons, and Miss Brandt acted in a manner that won storms of applause. Bast night the company appeared in GoraWifiO to a good fyoup?,

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT Temuka —Tuesday, June 20, 1893. [Before C. A. Wray, Esq., R.M.] NEGLECTING TO REGISTER. Mr Cole was charged with neglecting to register the birth of a child. P. P. White, registrar of births at Temuka, stated that the child was born in Christchurch, and the mother, he understood, was not aware its birth had to be registered until she took it to be vaccinated. He understood the department did not wish to press for a heavy penalty. His Worship inflicted a fine of 5s and costs. UNREGISTERED DOGS. John Malarkey was charged with having two unregistered dogs in his possession. Constable Egan, registrar of dogs, proved the offence. —Fined 10s each and costs, George Walker was charged with having an unregistered dog in his possesssion.—Constable Egan stated that the dog was a retriever. —The defendant’ stated his father had registered two dogs, and produced a receipt for one brown cattle dog. It was registered on the 15th February in the name of Wm. Walker. They were registered by Mr Lee, of the Crown Hotel. Could not say what fee was paid. It was a gun dog. His Worship said it was unlawful to register a gun dog as a cattle dog, and defendant was ordered to register the dog properly, and was fined 10s and costs. Christopher Horseman was charged with having one unregistered dog in his possession.—Fined 10s and costs. James Tucker, for one dog, was fined 10s and costs. Eli Mitchell, for one dog, pleaded not guilly.—Constable Egan said that defendant stated that he got the dog from a woman at the Washdyke. Could not produce the collar nor receipt. The dog appeared to be over the age of six months.—The defendant produced certificate to the effect that Mrs C. James had registered a dog in the Levels disttict. This was the dog in question.— Defendant was ordered to procure the receipt and show to the constable, otherwise the case would be brought on again at next court day. CIVIL CASES. James Biyth v. Wm. Johnson —Claim £3 4s 6d. Judgment summons. —Amount to be paid forthwith, or in default seven days. James Davis v. James Radford—Claim £2 16s 6d. Mr Salmond for plaintiff and Mr Postlethwaite for defendant. This was a claim for the wages of a boy, Albert Davis, who sued jointly with his father. The plaintiff stated that he was working for defendant, and took his boy down. On the day after they went to the job the boy was sent to Temuka for another dray, and the boy drove the drays for HH days. Witness and Mr RWhite filled Ihe drays. Applied for payd ment of an account sent. Had charge t 3s a day for the boy. Defendant did not dispute the fairness of the charge, bu said he could not pay as he had lost money. Offered to pay two pounds the following Saturday. By His Worship; The two pounds were offered on the whole account. By Mr Salmond : Was subsequently paid his own account, and defendant promised to pay the balance as soon as he could. Showed the balance due on the bill. By Mr Postlethwaite : No agreement was made as to the boy being paid. The work done was chiefly ploughing and carting. It was not a fact that Mr Radford was to supply the food. Did not ask Mr Radford to take the boy down as he was troublesome at home. The wages due to witness were settled in April,Jlß92. Did not take action before, as he expected to be paid. Mr Radford did not object to pay the boy. Sometimes the boy used to get the horses in. The boy started to work on the Ist February. On the 2nd February the second dray was sent for. By His Worship : Was paid in April, 1892. Boy was fed by witness. After the work was done told Mr Radford he should cnarge 3s a day for the boy. While the work was going on did not say anything about the boy’s wages. In April, 1893, made a claim through his solicitor for the amount. The boy worked every day and every hour. He was seventeen years of age. Albert Davis gave evidence to the effect that his father asked Mr Radford if there would be anything for him (the boy) to do, and that Mr Radford said he could bring him down and he would see. Went down, and was employed driving the dray and tipping. Mr Radford was not there every day, but when he was he told him where to put the stuff. By Mr Postlethwaite : Used to get the horses iu, boil the billy, and do as his father told him. Mr Postlethwaite briefly sketched the outline of the defence, and called James Radford, the defendant, who stated that he had a little job to do at a water race, and that not being able to get a contractor whom he had written to arranged with Davis for the services of himself and horses. Davis offered to take the boy down, saying he would be handy, and that he would have to keep him iu tucker if he did not take him. The boy used to do as his father told him. Was only on the job himself about four days and did not give the boy any wages. Always objected to pay the boy. The second dray was not sent for until about the 15 th day. By Mr Salmond ; Got a receipt for the wages paid to Mr Davis. Did not produce the receipt. Mr Postlethwaite objected to examination re the receipt. They should have had notice to produce. Mr Salmond ; You took a receipt showjng an amount owing. Mr Postlethwaite objected to this form of putting it, There might be an amount shown as owing without the defendant admitting it. By Mr Salmond: Did not know why the plaintiff asked leave to take the boy down. He may have thought he (witness) was going to provide tucker. Told him at the same time that the food would be by Mr White and plaintiff. Judged from the class of work that the second dray would not be wanted fox’ about a fortnight, as there was ploughing and scooping to be done firijt. Later on told Davis 'he could only pay for qne horse, but he"could get another dray so as to keep the horses going. The boy was not woi’king continuansly. Objected to paying the boy at the time the claim was made. The boy was working for his father. Messrs White and Davis could have done the work without the boy. One man could have filled while the other was taking the dray the distance. The boy’s labor only eased one man. Did not advance the work. By His Worship : There were only two men on the job. Paid Mr White 7s a day, and Mr Davis 12s for himself and implements. Did not get any advantage from the boy. His labor only eased, tip

other two. If he had had any idea that the boy was to be paid could have taken his own boy. Robert White : Was engaged by Mr Radford to take charge of the work mentioned. Mr Davis said he had taken ]iis boy down as he would be useful. The second dray was brought down some days after the work was started. Could have filled one dray while the other was taken away. Did not think the work would have taken any longer if the boy had not been there. By Mr Salmond: The boy worked regularly, and did whatever his father told him. Witness did not order him to do anything. By His Worship ; The boy lightened the labor of witness and his fathet. Mr Salmond asked for an opportunity to have the receipt mentioned produced, as he was convinced it was of material importance. His Worship would not grant an adjournment unless the plaintiff agreed to pay all costs. Mr Salmond would not press the matter. His Worship then gave judgment for defendant a with costs, and solicitor’s fee 21s. W. McLeod v. John Malarkey—Claim £5 4s Id.—Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed and costs. The Court then rose.