R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume IX, Issue 2882, 25 April 1888, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

OARTERTON-TUESDAY.

Before B. von Sturmer R.M.

Jas. Hodder v Jas Udy, withdrawn; defendant agreeing to pay costs. Fixing a Machine, J. H, Grata v Tlios, BennettClaim £lB 10s wages due for putting a moulding and plaining machine into proper working order. The defendant denied the liability, and further stated that no accountliadeverbeen rendered for the amount. Julius Kutzner of Masterton, engineer, deposed that the machine was fairly well put together, and that it would take an ordinary mechanic about 3 weeks to fix it up. After several other witnesses' evidence had been taken, judgment was given for plaintiff for .£l3 10s, with cost 4s and solicitors' fee 21s. A Busli Fire. R, H. Kells v, J. Udy, sen.—Claim £BO, for damages, through a bush fire. His Worship said he had viewed the locality since last sitting. The plaintiff was non-suited, he to pay cost of proceedings. A Wages Case. . Margaret Mac Gill v. Jas. Lower. Claim £ll 5s for wages. The mother of the plaintiff gave evidence in support of the claim, and seated that her daughter was with defendant for: 11 months at 5s a week, as per agreement. Margaret Mac Gill corroborated this, and said she had only received one shilling in cash, and some clothing. The defendant denied liability, and further stated that there was no agreement as to wages," and that the mother of the girl came and .took her away at a moment's notice, Plaintiff was non-suited, with 21s costs,

A Litigating Editor, John Ludford v 0. G. Beckett, claim £39 compensation for discbarge from the position of editor of the Wairarapa Observer, without notice, he considering lie was entitled to three months notice,

It was admitted by plaintiff's counsel (Mr Beard) that the agreement of engagement was a verbal one, but it was contended three months notice should have been given. The plaintiff gave evidence as to his engagement at £3 a week as Mr Beckett's editor, and also as to his summary discharge about ten days ago. He told Mr Beckett he should claim three months' wages or three month's notice. It was customary to give an editor that length of notice. He considered he had discharged his duties satisfactorily.

For the defence, counsel maintained that editors were not entitled to tlireo months' notice. (Plaintiff's legal adviser here cited several cases showthat they were). The defendant, C. G, Beckett, deposed that the arrangement was A3 a week and one month's notice, but that the plaintiff was discharged owing to his having put too much " wishywashy " literature into the paper. A. W. Hogg, .newspaper proprietor, in evidence said that custom did not justify three months notice. As far as he was aware, a fortnight was the usual notice.

R, A, liutcher, general collector and canvasser for the Wairarapa Observer, also gave evidence. His Worship deferred judgment until Monday, 7th May, at Masterton.