R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume X, Issue 3330, 9 October 1889, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

CARTPTON-TUESDAY, (Before Col Roberts, R,M.) Fj, N. Dixon v Mrs Roska, for rescuing cattle when in charge of plaintiff for the purpose of taking them to the public pound, Plaintiff deposed that ho was acting as ranger for the TaratahiCarterton Road Board and Carterton Borough Council, and on the 10th of last month he had nine head of cattle belonging to tho defendant for the purpose of taking them to the pound, when they were rescued from him by defendant and her children, Mr B.eard, for the' defendant, pleaded not guilty, E, Butler deposed that 1)8 saw the cattle jump over a bush fenco, and saw a woman and sorno children in the road, but would not swear that tiie on -dant was t' ie woman, Information &!«Bed with costs of witness and interpreter 15s, ' E.Cunecn yP. F,Tancred,-Mr Achesou tor plaintiff, Mr Bunny for defendant, The ease was a claim for wages as jockey, being balance duo 180. Plaintiff deposed that he was in the employ of defendant for about three years, and Hie agreement was that witness was to have 10s a week wages ani five'per cent on all winnings it liotse'.racing. lie won rices during 'thei time" he'was"in

the employ of defendant, and the value of the stakes won was £1225. He received iu all £3l on account, and there was still £BO owing. In answer to Mr Bunny, plaintiff deposed that lie was only to receive 8s per week wages. it this stage a receipt was put in showing that plaintiff had received all dues and demands from defendant up to May 80, .1808, at winch time lie left defendant's employ. In .'answer to the Court, plaintiff stated that he did not understand when lie signed the receipt that ho was signing a receipt in full of all demands. He would swear that he did not see tho words " and riding fees" on the receipt, and not seeing them they would not be there. Ho could not say which he signed first. The receipt marked " B" was in the same condition as when he signed it. W. Carr deposed he was a jockey, and was in the employ of defendant at the same time m plaintiff. He inteiviewed defendant, in ennpany with plaintiff, on 31st May, 1888, for the purpose of having a settling up, but did not get a settlement at that time, They received part payment, defendant stating that ho could not spare any more at that time. The receipt produced was the one he signed, but he did not understand ho was signing a receipt in full of all demands. To tho Court: When they were coming away defendant told them not to trouble him any more till later in the season. This took place outside after they had signed the receipts, P. F. Tancred deposed he was defendant in the present case, and did not admit the claim, Ho did not engage the man himself, but left the arrangement to be made by his i trainer, Mr Lyford. He admitted having paid plaintiff more than what i was duo for wages, but did not consider that lie was legally entitled to anything more than his wages. Judgment for defendant, with solicitor's fee ib Bs.