R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume X, Issue 3146, 6 March 1889, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MASTERTON-TUESDAY, (Before Mr H. S Wabdell, R.M.) Christian Messuch v J. Cade. Olaim £ls 15b for wrongtiil dismissal. Mr Skipper for plaintiff and Mr Pownall for defendant. Plaintiff' sworn, said he claimed £2 103, a week for three weeks, stores on hand, £B, butcher's bill, £2lss, baker's bill, £2lO, Mr PqwnallDo you. want the Court to believe , that when you loft you had L2los worth of bread on hand, ' , ' , Witness:'l.think . The Bench: Answer the question. Witness: I had twenty-four loaves and a bag of flquronhand, , ■ : The Beph j How long did twelve loaves last. ' S. : - ; ■ ■ Witness'! Two days.:- I can show the remainder of-the bread. There were about 801bs. of meat left. The meat cost 8d per lb. - Mr Pownall: 7s 6d. How do you account for the difference, . Witness; The difference is for the profit I have lost. Mv Pownall: Have you ever made up a list, or did you put in a lump sum. ' Witness; I told Mr Skippor.everything,

The Benoh: We 'have nothing'to ido with.what you told Mr Skipper. It is what you are tailing me now. ■ > Witness: —All right air I Mr Pownall: 100 of floor costs 18b and' 24 loaves at 9d per loaf costs 18s, which amounts to Li lis. How do you acoonnt for tho difference. ,• Witness; My. charge'is what I have put down. • • MrPownall :1s there. L2lss worth of meat spoilUthrought losing the job. Witness: Yes. MrPownall: Did you use none of it. Witness: I used some of it. 1 \The Bench: Aro you swearing you had 601bs of meat on hand when you left. v ' Witness: Some of it was used, i- The Benoh: Would you be willing to allow Mr Cade to buy the things: from you ? .. Witness: He never asked me 1

-Benoh : Would ryou allow him? . Witness: He never asked me! Mr Pownall:"You really think you are, entitled - - to/.the amount olaimed? -Witness: My -first estimate was £BO, but Mr. Skipper told me the machine might not last the whole season. £ls is what I claim. ■ ■ Mr Skipper : Mr Pownall asked if you were drunk. Were you ? Witness: I never was, air. Mr Skipper": What reason did Mr Cade give for discharging you ? ■Witness :,The reason was Mr Cade told me that he thought the men could live cheaper. ..Thomas Brown,was oalled and wanted to know who was to pay his expenses. . His Worship satisfied Mr Brown ; that he would have his expenses. ;

Witness was ilien sworn and examined by Mr Skipper, said .he knew plaintiff was in the employ of Mr Cade. Heard the men say the cook suited but it was not good enough for the money. Believed 8s

a week per man was the usual price, By Mr Pownall: Had-known 90 occasion 011 which the men had to 000k their own meals. Could not say he had ever seen plaintiff drunk. !.■: Wm. Moms sworn, examined by Mr Skipper: Knew plaintiff and heard him ask Mr Cade whether he was to leave, and whether thore was any fault to find with him. Cade, said there was no fault to find with'; him. The only reason he gave was that the men wished to live cheaper. , Witness was cross-examined by Mr Pownall, but-nothing fresh was elicited. John Heggie, the newly)engaged cook was called, but put in no appearance. Mr Cade stated that the'man had no boots to wear, whereupon His Worship said he thought his wages Bhould be raised.

His Worship staked that it seemed to him that when a man obtained cooking utensils &0., it was a general thing to engage a 000k for the whole season, and to that belief he would adhere until it was Bhown otherwise. W. J. Budd, sworn, was, engaged on Mr Cade's machine," The, cook was engaged by Mr Cade for the maohine men, nine in number. It was customary for the employer to engage the cook on behalf of the men. Found fault with irregularity of food, and getting worse for drink on two occasions at Mr Brown's.

Plaintiff cleared out without getting them tea on Tuesday, and said he .would not stop for : anyone. On Wednesday he was an hour late withbreakfast and dinner, and that afternoon ho went away and left the tea on the : fire stewing,for three hours. There was nothing cooked for. them, and they had to 1 getHfea themselves. Witness was foreman.'and on behalf of the men he told Cade that lie must

get rid of him; Plaintiff's , language was frightfully bad. On Thursday. they bad to kavfl lunch and dinner together. Cross-examined by Mr Skipper ; Mr Cade had the paying of the cook. Witness and the rest of the men authorised Mr Cade to engage and pay off the man. By the Bench : The reason they wanted to get rid of the cook was because. his cursing and swearing was unbearable. . Richard Collins corroborated the evidence of the last witness in the main. After some further -evidence was heard, judgment was given for defendant with oosls, / I