R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3564, 17 July 1890, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MASTERTON—THURSDAY.

(Before Colonel Roberts, R.M.)

Tiustees Masfceiton Hospital v. John Moorcock—Claim, £2 10a. Judgment for amount, with costs 255, R. Trathcn v. G. Hayward—claim for £lO, value of horse, saddle and bridle, lent in January 1885. Mt Pownoll for plaintiff, Judgineut.for plaintiff, with costs 10s. > A« S. Ridgwny v. R. Trulhen—elaitn for three day's work, at 7s per day. Plaintiff deposed to having worked for defendant gardening, either during tlio month of June or July, ho could not remember which. 'Ho claimed sevon shillings a day for tho work done.

Defendant; What did you do luring these three days ? Plaintiff: I was forming patlic, I'gging post holes, and did other work Defendant: Did you clear up the jrnss you were supposed to do ? Plaiutiff: This was not in the igreemcnt, ■

James Ridgway deposed that his brother formed a road and dug a considerable araouut of land for plaintiff. The digging was done in the summer time and tho ground was very hard. It was done either in the month of May or J'dy, he could not I remember which. His brother was engaged going to and fro to Billington's for a cart and thus lost time, Without hearing the defendant, tho Court non-suited the plaiutiff, A. Nearyv. A. Ooy-claim for three days work at 4s per day, Mr Pownall for plaintiff, Mr Skipper for defendant.

Alico Neary, sworn, deposed that she Lad worked for defendant on June 2nd, 3rd, and. 4th, Mr. Coy asked her. if- slio would go and give his wife a hand to pot straight, as slio was'jost going into' a fishmonger's shop. He said he, would pay her for what she did, but 110 amount was fixed, Site hut been paid for ut day'? washing

A demand bud previously been made lor tlio amount, By Mr Skipper: The first conversation I had was ivitli Mr Coy in his shop. My husband was not assist ing me. Ho was engaged by llio weok. I wns not helping my husband. Had tray meala at defendant's, but did not tliero lor accommodation, Was paid 5s for my day's washing,_ which included ironing also. Tlio 5s paid was not in settlement of other claims. R'John Noary, husband of plaintiff, corrobaled the ovidcnco of bis wife. A. Coy, defendant, deposed that he had nevor employed Mrs Ncary, Ncary was engaged, but ns he could not do scrubbing, his wife promised to do it in his stead. Plaintiff was helping her husband for about two hours only. Did not agree to pay Mrs Neary, nnd no claim was mado until Neary lmiU|mi dismissed. Martha' Coy, wifo of defendant,

t deposed that plaintiff came to her and offered to assist her to scrub out. Plaintiff oflercd to do her washing for 2s per week. On June lUh she gave Mrs Ncary us, being 2j for washing.and 3s for stubbing. Plaintiff was often in her house, and did not fail to put in an appearanco at meal times, Mrs Neary bad not dono throe day's work'in her house. Judgment was given for defendant,

L - A with costs, -B. Tratben v. S. Bidgway, Claim £llßs 9d for wages due and 9s Gd for loan of dray. Plaintiff deposed that in Mayi 1889, defendant said • he had a job and wished to know if ho would do it for him. An arrangement was mado that lie should do defendant's work if defendant would do his, Ho wcntand.did defendant's but defendant only humbugged about his work. Hired a cart for defendant to bring metal, but instead of doing so he (Juried his own firewood, Mr Billington, called by Tratben,

said that ut cart bad been borrowed from liiro, but was not returned at NT llio specified time. Hud not charged Ridgwiiy anything for breaking the curt, Trathen had hired the cart about 12 months ngo, and lie had charged him, Had nlso charged 8s a day for the use of the dray upon one occasion since. On tlio occasion that Ridgwiiy went for the dray lis was charged. J. Barker recollected an ngree-

ment between Ridgway and Tratlien to do work for each other, The road had uotbeen metalled by ltidgway. Knew Jf&at llidjiway had dug a few post holes and doue a little other work. Was present when Ridgway and Tratlien held a conversation about the woik. liidgway wanted socio work done to bis bouse, but said be had not the money to pay for it, and offered to do work in return, S. Eidgway, on oath, stated that he had agreed to do certain gravelling for Tratlien, provided a horse and dray woro found, and that Tratlien did work in his housj to a proportionate amount. Had offered to settle the affair out of Court, but the plaintiff was not agreeable, W. Ockenden, called by ltidgway he valued the work done by Tratl en at about 15s, nnd tlio timber at 2s. Must been joking if he had over nsked Tratlien to value work for him, This was the whole of the evidence. His Worship aaid ho would treat this caso tho samo as tho previous one, and nonsuit with costs,