COURTS.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 134, 14 March 1872, Page 3

COURTS.

POLICE COL 1 (IT.— Y ester day Before \V. FltASlUt, Esq., R.M.

Drunkenness. —John Kelly and Michael Caroll were charged with being drunk the previous day, and were subjected to the customary pains and penalties of that offence. A S'. AULT.— William Carnie was charged with assaulting a hoy namedMichaelßrecii by striking him and knocking him down at Graliamstown on the Dili inst.—Mr Lascelles appeared for defendant, who pleaded not guilty.—Michael Breen, aged ten years, (who said he had been to school for six months,'but knew nothing abort the nature of taking an oath, had given evidence once before) stated that lie knew defendant, and had seen him on the Dili hast., on which day witness saw (Jamie’s little girl throwing down some wood. lie went up and told her that the wood was not hers, and took it away, when defendant struck him over the head and knocked him into the creek.—Jane French deposed to seeing Carnie knock the hoy into the creek, hut sain that the latter had previously used some very had language.—Mary Breen, the boy’s mother, also deposed to seeing the assault take place.—The defence was that defendant was justified in what he did, and that the violence used was not nearly so great as was stated. —Mary Jane Carnie, aged T2, daughter of defendant, was examined in support of this line of defence, and staled that the boy made use of very bad language towards her father, and was in the a t of picking up a stone to hit him.— William Constable, aged 12, was also ex-

amined on behalf of defendant, as was also Charles Bonar, who stated that (lie wood about which the quarrel arose belonged to Carnie’s little girl.—The R.M. considered that defendant, was to some extent justified, but that defendant had gone rather too far in knocking the boy into the creek. Under the circumstance he would fine defendant Ills and cost. Extension of License. —An application by Caroll Nash, of the Munster Hotel, Pol'cn-slrect, for an extension of liis license to .’’arawai on the day of the Races (JSth i ust.) was granted on the usual cone'll 'on. WA :J AA O Cc/l; •• [Ui'.'ovc IV. Fraskii, Esij , r.A : .J Middle Star y. Star of Thame •. —This was an action for encroachment.—Mr Macdonald for plaintiff ; Mr Tyler for defendant. —Mr Macdonald said it had been arranged in this case that judgment should go for complainants for one shilling damages and costs £0 3s. j. Rkoan v. E Quinn and Others.— Mr Macdonald for complainant; Mr Tyler for defendant. —This was an action to enforce a partnership. The plaint set forth that complainant and defendants were engaged upon terms of mutual profit and loss to do certain work on the Caledonian G.M.Co.’s ground, and that some of the defendants now refuse to allow complainant to go on with the work, wherefore complainant asks the Court to adjudge that the parties were engaged as aforesaid, and that such engagement was a continuing one, and that the Court declare what breach defendants have made, and assess the damage sustained by complainant.. —S. E. Richards, manager of the Caledonian mine, stated lie knows Quinn, who together with others associated with him, have been doing work on the Co.’s ground. The job commenced on the 4th December last, and is not completed yet. It will take about two months from this time to complete it. Monies have been paid on account for this work. The Company made the bargain with Edward Quinn and Felix C’Comior, Afterwards a change was made by the substitution of John O’Connor for that of Felix O’Connor. A total of £375 has been paid on account of this work. The job was to take out a reef at per fathom, nnd it is now rather more in the contractor’s favour than it was at starting, but not very much.— John Regan, miner, the complainant in the action, stated 11 iat some time ago he was engaged on a contract job for the Inverness. Quint., Griffin, F.O'Connor and Nicholson were associated with him. Tt was Quinn who took the job. The work was done in shifts. There were altogether 5 mates cud a wages man. Whilst this was going on a contract was taken by Quinn and O'Connor with the Caledonian Company. It was arranged that one part of the Inverness party was to stop there and go on with that, work, the other part was to go on with the Caledonian. The Inverness parties were to share in the work. John O'Connor was to he taken to work at the Caledonian.' After some time an objection was raised to witness having anything more to do with the matter as he could not wotk. Witness told them that if they were not satisfied with him they could pick out a man to work for him and he would pay him wages. This proposition was not carried

put. This happened on a Saturday, and on the Monday following wit ms* consulted a lawyer. Witness wanted to go on with his work and Felix O'Connor declined to let witness go on, and told him he had nothing more to do with the contract, and should get nothing more out of it. He said his reason was that witness was not doing sufficient worlc. Witness again

consulted his lawyer, and sent (/Connor a letter in relation to the matter, or rather signed one which was written for him. Asked Quinn to give an answer. Did not get one. Has been rdways ready and willing to go on with his contract and is so now. Received n balance for the Inverness money since that time, but on

applying for bis balance or Hie Calcdon- , inn. was told there was none for him. Quinn said he had thrown up the contract, , and that the O’Connors had taken it. ' Witness has never voluntarily withdrawn from the contract.—By Mr Tyler : There ’ was no complaint made hy my mates that [ I had not told a shift when they came in I to work that a shot had not gone otf. I : I was told that it did go otf whilst this * shift was at work, and blew out a drill | fur a considerable distance. A man named Lawson was hurt whilst 1 was at j work. He never had his leg broken. Never heard his mates say it was dangerous to work where I was. Have been e.ecustomd to blasting and working in hard ground.—Mr Tyler moved for a non- . suit on throe grounds—lst, that plaintiff j was not entitled to take proceedings, as j lie had not produced a miner’s right in I force at the time the proceedings com- J mcnccd ; ‘2nd, no evidence that this was a goldmining partnership ; 15, that the j partnership proved was a partnership at I will, and therefore determinable at the will of the parties. — MrMacdonaid replied : j The Court over-ruled (lie 11011-suit points, j —Mr Tyler then said (lie defence of the i case on the merits was, that complainant j was not competent for this work, and (hat ; several men were nearly Killed through j his inconipeteney and negligence, in ! consequence of which it was positively dangerous to work with him ; therefore, defendants very naturally got rid of him ns soon as they could and dissolved the partnership, as it was impossible to cany on with him.—Edward Quinn deposed that before seeing complainant at work in the Caledonian contract, ho had no knowledge of what sort of a workman complainant was. AH the men objected to working with him, and witness told him j he must go, because he was unable to I do his work, and for fear some of the | men would be seriously hurt.—James ' Lawson, miner, stated that whilst at work for Quinn and party at the Caledonian mine, he was very nearly losing his life hy complainant’s negligence. Whilst w. rking near him 011 one occasion he j threw down a largo stone, which hit witness on the leg and nearly broke it, and I on another occasion, whilst complainant was at work throwing out stuff, lie threw j some in such a manner that witness was i struck and hurt. At another time complainant left a blast in (he. drive, which had not gone off, hut he persisted that it had. He evidently knew nothing about working with gunpowder, and witness objected to work with him.—This witness had been in Court during the hearing of the case, all witnesses having been ordered out. It was not clear that witness was aware of the order, and the Warden said lie would not make him the first victim under the new Act, but in future all witnesses who disobeyed the order of 1 lie Court in this particular, would he fined to the utmost extent the law allowed. —I’. Griffin gave similar evidence to that previously adduced ns to plaintiff’s want of competency, and stated that when the shot before spoken of went off it went up into the air about 40 feet.—John O’Connor gave corroborative testimony of the danger of working with complainant, ns did Felix O’Connor.—Mr Macdonald contended that the question of ltcgan’s competency or inconipeteney had nothing to do with the issue of the case, hut even if it had, lie contended it had not. been proved so ns to deprive the man of his rights under the contract, and (hat complainant was entitled to what he asked for.—The Warden reserved judgment. The C’ojp-t then rdjourned until Wednesday next.