RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume VI, Issue 1842, 27 November 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS DAY. CBeforo W. Fbaseb, Esq., E.M.) Civil Side. ■> THE APPEAL CASES.. .. - t , ;■ , -■-,. In the cases of appeals against the Borough assessment an adjournment was granted, on the application of Mr Macdonald, who appeared for the companies. Negotiations between the parties are pending. JAMES BAE V. NOETOU". Thi3 was a claim of- £17 10s, ;the amount of a promissory note. •,, . ; iPlaintiff did not appear. Defendant said he had paid £6 interest. He had not money to pay at the time, and the interest ran up to the extent of 30s per month. His Worship adjourned the case for a fortnight, that some arrangements might be come to. 1 GEOEGE HUL3IE V. C. F. MITCHELL. This was a claim of £2 4s 9d for goods. I There being no appearance of defendant, plaintiff was examined, and judgment j given for the amount and costs, £2 12s. AGNES BAXTER "Y. DAVID SPESTCE.. A claim of £13 16s. lOd. for goods. There was no appearance of defendant. Mr. Brasse'y stated "that a'sunimons had been issued early in October, having had to send to Balclutha. The case was adjourned for fourteen.days. ; •..-,.•: * Defended Cases.

THOMAS BAIED V. PATRICK DONNELLY. This was a claim of 19s, for wages pn account of work performed, os of this amount had been paid into Court, being expenses for one day'i,: attendance on the District Court in a case in which defendant was concerned. Mr. Macdonald .appeared for plaintiff, and said his client had received no notice of any money being paid into Court. Patrick Kir win Donnelly said he used to go by the name of Patrick Donnelly until lately. Was working with Baird in the Italian niine in April last. He was working cor tract,, for the. company, and working wages for the company. Baird was managing the mine. He was a shareholder in the contract with witness. Never employed Baird at all. Witness was sinking the shaft in April. Baird helped to sink the shaft by contract. Baird also worked in the shaft that was being sunk in the day work. Witness never employed him to work two days. . Thomas Baird said Donnelly was a contractor in the. Italian mine. He employed witness to put a ladder down the Italian shaft, as he could not do it himself. Putting the. ladder down was outside the contract. At the time witness put the ladder down he was not a partner with Donnelly. Donnelly did- not commence to work for wages until after the ladder was put down. The shaft was the main Italian shaft. The wages were fixed at 7s. per day. Donnelly said he would not pay, and abused him. By defendant —I was simply Inspector of Works to measure it every fortnight. I was not a shareholder in the contract when I put .down the ladder. The com- ■! pany supplied the material through me. It was necessary to have the ladder put down to sink the 10 feet. It was for defendant's own convenience that it was put down.

In reply to His Worship the defendant said he no more owe-1 the money to the plaintiff than the child unborn. The work done was in the contract in which defendant was a partner He would ask His Worship to postpone the case until some "other day, when the true facts could be elicited. His Worship said he was not satisfied about the two days' work, and explained to defendant that he should have paid the costs of the summons and subpoena into Court as well as the ss, and then he should have given him judgment for his costs. Defendant said he had offered the costs to the Clerk of the Court, who would not take them. J. B. Stoney was examined ss io this. He deposed that he had not absolutely refused to take the costs, but had said he did not think it was necessary, as he had heard it ruled that a demand must previously be made. He told Donnelly that he would see the Magistrate. Mr. Macdonald referred to another section of the Act referring to notices, and His Worship said this would take the power out of his hands, and he would be coixmeiled to give judgment for costs.

Judgment was given for the ss, His Worship not being satisfied about the two days', and costs. Mr Brasscy was detained on a subpoena, so the costs were pretty heavy, amounting to £2. His Worship explained to defendant that it was necessary in cases of the kind to give notice of tho amount of the sum paid into Court, and set forth what it was for. Court adjourned.