R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 4, Issue 1196, 5 October 1882, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MASTEBTON-TBIS DAY, [Beforo Messrs Bish & Beetham, J.P.'s] J. C. Ingram v B. ffilsone.—Allowing chimney to catch fire, Fined 10s and C'ists, Simo v A. E, S. Can - ,—Driving without lights. No appearance of defendant. Fined 10s and costs. Same v Same.—Allowing a chimney to catch fire. Mr Bish slated that defendant admitted the charge, and had sent ,ut: apology for not being able to attend the Court, Fined 10i and costs. Walter J. Nathan v Hara Te Hiaro,— Debt £6 2s 4d. Mr Beard for plaintiff. No appearanflt) of defendant. Judgment for amount "and costs. G. I'ugsley vE. Bennett.—Debt |2 jfs: Gd, lmrse hire. Mr Beard for plaintiff. Judgement for amount and costs, THE BAHBEK IK COURT. B. W. Ifinney v G. Dixon—Debt £5 123. Id, Mr Bunny for plaintiff, Mr Beard for defendant; -The cljiim I was. for £2 103 hoing a weeks wages in lieu of a weeks notice, and secondly 53,9.s being fivu per cent, on the i'ecoipts of the hairdressing establishment during the time i that it was confjuclcd by the plaintiff, Mr Beard for the defence alleged that the ;nolice liad been given, aud~tliat there was no ejisting agreement for percentage. ■, Richard W.; Finnoy, hairdresser,a'esidibg at Masterion, said: I was lately in the employ of Mr George Dixon., I was iti Christcburch, aiid saw sin advertisement in the.Lyttelton TimesfroriiMr Dixon, and wrote to know his terms, and got .a telegram in reply. Tho telegram offered me two pounds ten per week, and five per cent on takings, I wrote accepting his terms. I also communicated with Mr Dixon ro my expenses tu Maalerton, asking fur fifty shillings'to defray Bame, Mr Dixon telegraphed back " will allow fifty; shillings if ; you stop hero .three ! months;" ' When I arrived in Masterton I waited on Mr G. Dixon, and arranged for hours of. work , and entered upon the duties. I .had weekly settlings with- hip, At the first settlement I received fifty-one Ballings and elevenpence, the one and elevenpence being for commission. I entered his employ on tho, 11th of February, ,He told me on a Monday' in September; that he should not want me after' the end : of i the week. ; I told-him I would not'take that notice.; Wh'eii I left He.pitid'me a'weok's wages and gave uie a shilling to get.a •drink.' I did 'not" I "told; Mr Dixon on the second >veek"l was with him not to add - the small percentage ;i every week but-tp let jt j'stand over.'; He paid tertOflf '' '

;'-r.To)Mr BeHrd: Mr Dixon paid the exr peniiQs when I asked for then), aaksr the commission'. till' I left?:.; ,Ho .■ generally paid me on Moneys or Tues- ■ daj?B| , 'r t , | : ••/.Mr Beard:,*Before,-you came,up hero vwha£ wereytm dbic?! .' *'> i-iMr Beard; Very well I wont hurt his feelings,'. (excitedly):: -ltd rather, answer the question; lie wont hurt my feeling, Mr Beard: Did you tell Mr Dixon lafterryou.arrived'that'ydu-wereoutpf practice,.; v'Withesi: He said I was slow arid I admitted that I was slow. Mr Beard: Did you not at the same time say yoo would not charge the commission T' ' • ; . I "Witness: If he took it wrong he 'ought not to hare taken it for more than I meant ■it." ' ~. ; .....' : , f Mrßeard: Durmg the time you were in his,employment you were in the habit of.talcing too. much occasionally were you Dot! ■ -.l' 1 Mr Bunny objeoted to the question. Witness; I was never incompetent, Mrßeard; Tou entered into his employment on a Monday morning, ; Witness: He told nie I need not come to work till the Monday. I offered to come iiT on the Saturday. I did not, when I left, demaud a fortnights notice.

Mr Beard; Did you show Mr Dixon your certificates.

Witness; He did not care to see them. He only cared to Bee the sixpenoea. . _ George Dixon deposed; I am a tobacconist residing in Masterton, I engaged the defendant, who entered my employment on a Monday morning, and left on my giving him notice a week hefore on a Monday. After the first week when I gave him his cheque I added to it the commission or hia taking. He told me then not to mind the' commission, he would be satisfied with the two pounds ten shillings a week as his hand was out, and it was sonje tinje sipce lie had done any work. I told bin) J thought he was a little slow, and lie woijld have to be quicker. He said that with leaving off the commission the wages would not be so heavy, and that was ihe reason 1 kept him so long. He cljd not claim the commis mission afterwards till I gave him a week's notice, Finney's staiemejit about allowing the commission to accumulate is false. To Mr Bunny: I telegraphed to him at Ohristchurch telling him I should warn him on Satjirdaj, He offered to come oh Saturday and assist, saying he would give the day iii, Ij'ut I declined to take hiin on till the Monday." Afigj.) the rirst week 1 told him tl|»t I tl}9qgl)t t!)at' the - fifty shillings was epnugh wjtliout the commission, I complained ftom time to time of. hjs being diiipk. He frequently got drunk, J kept him so long in my employ only jippusß J puijld |]nt g a t any one else to fill his pjaoe, \V|)en jfiunevfiist came the takings were as good as tfjoso of his prodeoessor, but not right through. To Mr Beard; He tdd me that he wanted to work on Situ day to get his hand;in,

Mr Beard: And bo was frequently drunk?

Mr Bunny; He might hare been drunk every day ifl t|)p tyr ant} jt would not niter the claim.' v

Alfred McCane a boy working for Mr Dixon corroborated the evidence of defendant re tho notice given to plaintiff, Henry Ford knew the defendant and had frequently been shayed by him (Finney: Once).

Mr Bawd; \yiiat» state did you find him in when you went there, Mr Bunny objected to the qii6Btion as Mr Beard had not stated incapacity as a ground of defence. ' Mrßeard: There is no statute or law to make me plead the defence beforehand. The Court held that evidence on. this point was unnecessary. Mr Beard: Very well. That will do, Mr Ford,""

Mr' Bunny rose to address (he court, jyhen Mr Bjeard pointed out that by the i'lilesf of the Court lie could not address it Mr Busily rctorjfld that th|s was simple ianoranc.eon, Mr JJeard'a part, and subletted that by law plaintiff was entitled tj a peek's notice from Friday night, • ,M r o®?s if) l'aply maintained that Finney living s(s §1 work on Monday, and received payments on Monday, that day was the date from a week's fiofjce shoul(3 be given. ?h§ Court gaye jud'iimenf for i' 3 9s and cosfs, Ji) jts op|nio|) the |jrst item for £2loa goui'i qot j)e ajlqwed, The very fact of i'iuney apcgpfin? his money to the end pf t|)B Wfiek showed that hptli parties considered that tlje wpelf ended on Satur day. There was in tljo opinion of the Court insufficient evidence to upset the original agreement for commission, and on this item judgment would go in favor of the plaintiff,