Magistrate's Court.

Waimate Daily Advertiser, Volume IV, Issue 189, 12 April 1902, Page 3

Magistrate's Court.

Thursday, April 10th. Before Mr J. Keddell, S.M. CIVIL CASES. Maindonald v. E. Alfrey, claim £1 2s. There was no appearance of defendant, and the case was adjourned to the 24th.

W. Buckingham v. Canterbury Auctioneers’ Company, claim .£24 2s 9d for fruit supplied. There was no appearance of defendant, and judgment was given for amount and costs, £2 14s.

James Wall v. James Breen, claim £5 9s 9d, wages as stacker at Is per hour. Mr Hamilton for plaintiff. (The case was supported by the Waimate Workers’ Union.) Plaintiff, sworn, said he was engaged by the hour. He worked 114 hours and had half a pound of tobacco. Left before all the stacking was finished on account of wet weather, but did not leave an uncompleted stack. There was plenty other work, but defendant would not give it to him, and he could not afford to wait for the weather to clear to resume stacking. Defendant, who was unrepresented by counsel, was asked if he had any questions to ask, but he did not manage to do more than make statements, both plaintiff and defendant arguing rather heatedly. Henry Howard, labourer, was engaged as harvester during the season. He was forking in the paddock. The usual rate of wages was Is per hour for | all classes of work.

John Smith, labourer, deposed that the usual rate of harvest wages was Is per hour for all kinds of work. James Breen, defendant, deposed that be engaged plaintiff at Is per hour for stacking and lOd lor other work. Told him that he would not engage him unless he agreed to stop till the harvest was finished, and he replied that the longer the job the better he liked it. He came on Saturday for his money, and defendant refused to pay him till the harvest was finished.

His Worship said the work had been done and Is seemed the usual rate of wages. Judgment was for plaintift with costs, J 63 ss.

,1. T. Eodgers (Makikihi) v. F. W. Berry. Mr Clement for plaintiff, Mr '* Hamilton for - defendant. The

action was for recovery of a bi\adplate valued at 7s fid, which was alleged to be detained by defendant whilst in p’aiatiff a employ. J. T, Rodgers, farmer, Makikilii, recently had defendant in his employ in charge of horses. Spoke to him about a pair of breastplates that were missing. They were only ornaments, and were usually kept in the shed. Gave him the harness to be used and he had attached the breastplates. Told him to replace them in the shed, or if anything happened to them ho would have to pay for them. He did not do so. Spoke to him again when he had noticed one was missing. He put one back, but made all sorts of excuses about the other being broken and lost. When a settlement was being made witness told him he must either bring a new breastplate or the broken one. Defendant said it was under the flax,.but he did not bring it. There were about two or throe tons of flax at the time, and this had since been shifted, but the breastplate had not been found To Mr Hamilton . The other man might have used it. Objected to the use of the breastplate when defendant first used it, and not or.lv when lie came for bis money. 16: cjid not use it with plaintiil’s permission. The breastplate was valued at 10s new, but as it was n present from a friend he would not have taken £1 for it. Win. Rodgers remembered his brother telling Berry to put the breastplates back. Berry was harnessing up at the time. Tin- defence was that Berry had not got the breastplate, but left both at the shed, and he denied that he was forbidden to use them.

Mr Hamilton submitted that plaintiff had fail.-d to prove that defendant had detained the goods, and a nominal fine without costs would meet the case.

F. W. Berry deposed that plaintiff knew he was using the breastplate and did not tell him r.ct to use it. When he went for his money before leaving Mr Rodgers declined to pay him in full unless he bought a new one or brought the pieces. Said he thought the pieces must have fallen down and been covuxd by flax. Shifted some, but couM rot find it.

To Mr Clement: There was no mention of the breastplate in conversation till the defendant was leaving. Denied that the conversation alluded to took place. His Worship said defendant told a straightforward story, but so did plaintiff and his witness, and plaintiff showed his bona fides by coming to Court for a small sum. He rightly thought it was his property, and he was entitled to it. Judgment was for amount of claim and costs, Bs.

Several claims for old age pensions were then heard.