RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thames Star, Volume XII, Issue 3942, 17 August 1881, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

THIS BAY

(Before H. Kenrick, Esq., R.M.) DRUNKENNESS.

It. Jackson was charged with being drunk yesterday in Graliarnstown, and with breaking a pane of glass valued 20s in the window of Mr McCaul's shop.

The accused admitted both offences, and the Magistrate made an order for the payment of the amount of damages, and discharged the man.

M. MURPHY AND OTHEKS V. W. BENNETT

A claim for £11 4s, wages. Mr Braasey for the plaintiffs, Mr Miller for the defendant.

William Murphy (one of the plaintiffs) depb.sed to Bennett going to his house on the Monday-.after tho flood, and asking him, in the presence of Scotfc O'Neill, if he would undertake.to do the draining required at 32s 6d per chain, or work for wages at 8s per day. The parties agreed, and Murphy, O'Neill, and Willetts proceeded to i he ground with provisions, and put up a tent. After they arrived at the ground, Mr Bennett asked them to take it at 25s per chain, and finally drew up an agreement at 15s per chain, which the plaintiffs refused to sign. They had worked 11 days, and claimed 8s per day. Scott O'Neill, another plaintiff, corroborated the previous witness.

Joseph Barber deposed, to his having been engaged at 8s per day.

This closed the plaintiffs' case

William Willett deposed he was one of the plaintiffs. He did not tell Mr Nicholls, the carter, that he left the work because he could only make 5s per day. W. Bennett deposed—He required some draining done, and saw Murphy and O'JNeill about it. They wanted the same price as others had for similar work. He had told them if they did not like to take it at contract price he would pay them at the rate of 8s per day. After the men had been at work some time he told them he would pay at the rate of 15s per chain, and after that they continued work. He did not say after that they could go on at wages. An agreement was made, that produced, and he was willing to carry it out. He did not consider the men were working for wages.

The Court gave judgment for nine days and a half work, at 8s per day, for three men, less £2 paid on account, and costs.