R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume X, Issue 3152, 13 March 1889, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

OAIITERTON-TUEBDAY, (Before Mr H. S. VVardell, R.M.) DEBT. A. A, Mercer v. W. Mead's, claim £lol7s Od. Judgment by default for amount claimed,- and costs 2(Js." W. Bidgway v. J. Burrow, claim for £l lss. Defendant paid fe into Court but the plaintiff declined to accept'that as payment. This was acase in which plaintiff claimed 10s for taking a horse-rake from Carterton to Gladstone, and 25s~per week as cook, the plaintiff's statement was that the defendant engaged him on the 6th February to take a horse-rake to his place at Gladstone, and at the same time the defendant engaged him as cook at 25s a week, and when begot to Gladstone he refused .to employ him'. . F. Herd, stated that he resided at .Gladstone. He heard Mr Burrow tell the plaintiff-.tb go to his work for the week and: lie would pay him his wages, aud lie asked Mr Burrow for 10s for taking the horse-rake to Gladstone, and Mr Burrow offered him ss, A cook had been engaged by him, ; witness', : 'during Mr Burrow's absence, and the plaintiff refused to go intone harvest field in the stead of doiitg tlie cpoidijgi. - : •:'. : .. The ..stated, that' Stlie plaintiff came to ;him on" the Show Ground at Carterton and; askedjiim to give : liini work, and ; ;ifjer .some ] Mm; jit, 25s per week'and to go' - arid if there, was-'not a, cook .'already engaged he^wasUo-go-as c00k,.-biit if there was wastoi do gfcnoval T work, ]and;^sj ; thejeyiyas \ a »cpok; en'-: gaged:-;4itring.; bis abs vvai

refused to 1 do Witness Ihen ofieiod him 6s for bringing the hoiso lake out to Gladstone, which he refused to take. Caso dismissed. W H Wilton vE. Buckendge.An adjourned case from last Court day. Mr Beard foi plaintiff, Mr Slappei for defendant.

R Buckendge deposed, I was a paituei in the late fiiin of King and Co, butcheis, of Caiturton. I joined

tho fiim ou the Ist March, 1887. Theie were then two old caits in the business, and afteiwaids there was anothei new cait obtained from Mr Enckson.by my instructions, and I always used it during the existence of the firm Thoio was no bailment over that one When I joined the business theie was a bailment of £IOO ovei the things m the firms use Theio was no fiesli bailment exe buted during my time. King owed Ingley £IOO, and ho threatened to sell him up, 801 p'e Ingley a sale note over the horses so as to lelease the firm. That sale note had nothing to do with any of the piopeity which is now claimed by plaintiff. I knew of" no sale note given orei the articles mentioned in tho bill of paitioulars. Hooker gave two accommodation bills to the firm, which met one of them. Hooker told me that King had taken up the othei bills. When the bills weie met Hookei just

handed over the bailment aiid receipt.j There.wereiiio fresh papers executed, as far as 'I Um aware." I do not know whether they .were promissory notes or bills of exchange. 'I. never saw them.: Hooker never cbnsultel uie : about the bills. 'I never liiid access to the banking account of the firm.- (A-blll endorsed by Hbokor was handed into Court.) I never saw that bill before. : ;;.'

' To the Court: I. knew by' '..what King told me : .tliat-tlie"-first' bill Vvyaa met.'atid the secbntVbill Hooker told me was ni'et'.'bnt itotm what manner. I knew nothing-whatever about '.the' transaction between Hooker and' Wilton. Did'not know that these were in the possession of Wilton till I got a summons claimiug the -carts &c.'- i: I tood possession of the carts to make

King come to terms in respect to a dissolution 'of partnership,.. I didnpt know Wilton, only as a servant, .in the business. I took the carts from the premises of the firm and put theih in. a shed-at the, Marquis of Norinanby Hotel in tho ohargo of James Brail. Wilton never corn-

municated with me to let me know that he had a claim on the things, and I never knew anything about it till I got a letter from Mr Beard about the things. -The Deputy Official Assignee had claimed the things on behalf of the creditors,when I took the carts from Jhe' premises of the late .King <fc Co. Wilton's name, was not affixed to the

premises. -....' To Mr Beard: I will not swear that King's name was not on the 6ign board on the 28th January, I did not take much interest in the business for the last four/or five months, for I saw that all waygoing put and.nothing in return;^t could get barely food out of, it. • ;I-.:was at work generally on behalf olthe firm; till about the 15th January, and from that time I waß expecting ling to meet me to dissolve partnership. When I. joined the business I did not know that King was so much in debt-or 1 would not have joined him in'the business, W. H, Wilton, re-called ;-I took possession aud started business on my own account about the, 14th January;. I shortly after advertised the same in the Observer. When I oomhienced business 1. drove my own trap, which I brought from Wellington. ■ .

■ W, B, Cainpin, being sworn, deposed:. lam a painter and knoK the plaintiff intthi s action. I was engaged.early iu February last to alter the narao on the sign board at tho butcher's shop from E. King to W. H, Wilton, It took two coats of paint over the name of E. ■ King before I wrote the name of W. H.| i Wilton, which was about the Bth of February, His Worship gave evidence that the plaintiff was entitled to the three carts, or their value, £B2, ■■'.". Mr Beard asked that an order be made for immediate possession to be given of the carts, but was refused, but ultimately an order was made that they be given up to the plaintiff on or before Monday, the 18th inst, so that in tho meantimo the Deputy Official Assignee could take proper .action hi- the matter. -