RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VII, Issue 427, 20 January 1875, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT LAWRENCE.

(Before E. H. Carew, Esq., Warden.) Monday; Jantjaby 18, 1875. Wm. Draper was charged by Sergeart Farrel with allowing his chimney to catch fire through carlessness. This was the ficsfc time. Fined 5s ; and costs of court, 5s fid. The following applications were granted. Mr. Thompson offering no objection on the part of the police. — R. Grieve for a bagatelle license ; John Roughan and John Roberts for permission to keep open their licensed houses on the mornings of the 22nd and 23rd inst. to 3 o'clock a.m. ; Joseph Bull having now filed the Jockey Club receipt, for the pur- * chase money of a booth, a temporary license ■was granted. Pearson v. Russell. — Summons not served. Craig y. M,Kenzie. — Claim of £14 for wages of lad employed to keep cattle off crops "•'of plaintiff. Mr. Copland for plaintiff ; Mr. IVi'Coy for defendant. The defendant pleaded - not indebted. Mr. M'Kenzie is sub-coutractor of the railway at Manuka creek, and the -plaintiff is a landowner through which the railway passes ; a fence of plain( iff's was on the line, and destroyed by the railway works, leaving the crops of plaintiff's open to strange . "cattle. Craig frequently complained of this ijfco iM'Kenzie, who at last said he would pay the wages of a herd boy to keep the cattle off at the rate of £1 a week. The defendant stated that this wastto be paid when the railway fence was erected, and not before. This the plaintiff denied. After "the plaintiff had kept his grandson from school for six weeks to herd the cattle, the defendant told him he would not pay for any more. Mr. MCoy , csid. that the defence was that six pounds only { wm- due, aw that not till the railway fence * ycu up, which w,0.-ld not be for some time yet!, Jbat «• a non suit point , he said there was no necessity for M'Kenzie's promise. There was Up liability on him as sub-contractor for ini^y caused by constructing the line, 'the Go /'Wernment were responsible for, tha^; as to -hit .engagements to pay the wages, it «•■ not for hik advantage but for the plainTUT* After Mr. Copland Cfti replied his said the boy bad been employed at tbe plaintiff* ropiest on Li* promjap to paj,

and be thought that was sufficient conside&i ation. For the defence the defendant was called and admitted the promise, but said it it was stipulated that the money was not to be pail until the fence was erected which was not vet done, he would^tben be willing to pay the £6, but not the £14 sued for. Judgment for £6 ; costs of court, £1 9s ; witness expenses, £1 ; professional costs, £1 Ib.