R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XV, Issue 4340, 9 February 1893, Page 3

R.M. COURT.

MASTERTON.-THUBBDAY. (Bcforo Colonel Bobrrls, 8.M.) CIVIL CASES. KowKcevDickeison. Mr Bunny for plaintiff, Claim £2 for board and lodging. Judgment with costs Gs and counsels fee 21s, J. J. Smith v, C, Benzie. Claim £2 7s Gd for subscription and advertising, Mr Pownall for plaintiff, Judgment with cosis 10s, Same vO. L. Stokes. Claim £8 10s for advertising, Judgment with costs 9s and counsel's i'eo 21s. Same v Charles Stowart. Claim £4 15s balance of account due to newspaper. Judgment with costs 6s and oouusel's fee iis, Eiddifurd v Hiddick. Claim, £1 on Promissory note. Mr Bunny appeared for plaintiff, and put in the sworn affidavit of the plaintiff as evidence His iVorship withheld his decision. Graham and Co. v C. Rubick. Claim, £5 9s !id for goods supplied, Mr Pownall for plaintiff*. Judgment with costs 10s, and counsel's fee 21s, Same vS, Naylor, jun. Claim, £1 103 9d for Roods supplied. Mr Pownall for plaintiff. Judgment with costs 9s, Hartley vT.L. Thompson. Claim £3 17s for professional services, Judgment, with costs 7s. Bird vJ. Gleeson. Claim, £2l7s 9d for service of Marquis of Salisbury stallion, Air Pownall for plaintiff. Judgment with costs. Bird v. J no. Barker claim for service of stallion, Mr Pownall for plain-

Air Bunny for dcfendantstated that the tlct'endunt resided 3G miles nearer Napier tlian Woodville, and was therefore out, of the jurisdiction of tho Court, Air Pownall applied for an enlargement ol ilia summons until next Court day, There had simply been no lervice, m tlio summons should not have been served outside the jurisdiction. William Bird, plaintiff in the notion, gave ovidenco that tho defendant lived on the Manawatu Rivrr, twelve miles from Pahia'.ua and sixteen miles from Woodville. This was the only address he knew. Had addressed a letter to tho defendant at Pahiatua and it had not beon returned, Did not know exactly whore Mr Barker resided. After legal argument His Worship adjourned his decision on the point uuiil two o'clock, Graham and Co. v, Ralph Manning. —Claim £8 10s 4d for goods supplied. Mr Pownall for plaintiff, Judgment with costs, 20s, and counsel's feo 21a. J.J.Smithv.HJ.W. Wyborne, Claim 14a for subscription to newspaper, Mr Pownall for plaiutiS, Judgment with costs, !k Samo t. Albert Ljford. Claim £1 os for advertising. Judgment with costs, 7s.

Samo v. W. A. P, Sutton. Claim £ll2s, Sixteen shillings had beon paid since issuo of tho summons, Judgment for balanco with costs, 7s, Some v. Hawkins, Claim 20s for subscription to paper. Judgment with costs, 10s. Same vJ. McMillan. Claim £1 163. Plaintiff stated £1 14a had been paid since tho issue of tho summons, Judgraant was given for balanco of 2s with costs 7s, Same v W. lirmmigan. Claim £1 4s fid, Judgment with costs 30s. Same y T. M. Jackson, Claim £3103 Cd fot advertisement. Defendant forwarded a letter stating that he bad no knowledge of the plaintiff. Judgment for amount with costs, Same vA. C. Eowo. Claim £2 19s Gd. Judgment with costs 20s. Same v Mitchell, Claim 10s, Judgment for plaintiff with costs of Court 6s. Same vJ. Bertie, Claim £2. Judgment for plaintiff', with costs 7s. Same v R. W. Marshall. Claim £2. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs 7s.

Same v C, Collier senv, Claim £G 13s Gd, Judgment for plaintiff, with costs 14s, and solicitor's fee 21s. Same v W.W.Smith. Claim 12s. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs 6a. Pownall v R, Manning, Claim £2 lCs in assigned estate of It, G, Williams, Judgment for plaintiff, with costs 225, Jago v C. W, Langstone. Claim £lss Cd, Mi Pownall for plaintiff, Judgment by default, with costs 6s, Hercockv, Langstone,-Claim £4O lGs 7d. Mr Pownall for plaintiff. Judgment by dofault, Costs of Court 30s, solicitor's £3 3s. Hirach v. J. Thompson.—Claim £1 balance duo for tuition of two hoys at night school. Mr Pownall for defendant, Defendant had paid £1 on account, and plaintiff sued for the

balance. a The defence set up was that Mr Thompson did not engago plaintiff, c but had offered to pay 10s each for c the teaching of the boys. This was « the charge Mr Hirseh had made. A c cheque for tbe pound had been paid to plaintiff at the time, Mr Thompson statod in evidence that he hid not made himself liable for any other amount than that paid. D, J, Reardon, ono of those for whom the fee was e'ued, corroborated the evidence of defendant, To plaintiff; Was not present at an interview in Mr Thompson's private office, Judgment for defendant, Eao v. Slkins.-Olaim £3O 4a lid. Mr Pownall for plaintiff, Mr Beard for defendant. The sum of £ls had been paid into Court. Plaintiff sworn, said the claim was wages at tho rato of 30s per week added to which there was a claim of 15s for turning billiard balls and fare from Wellington fla lid. There was no agreement as to the rate of wages, but witness had not received a lower rate of wagoa during the last ten yoara. The rate claimed was the uenal rate paid to thoso in similar employ, viz,, that of billiard marker and assistant barman and waiter. Tho engagement was a verbal ono made in the street m Wellington, With reference to the claim for turning tho billiard balls they were done by a friend of witness 1 , No money had passed but they wero charged against witness. To Mr Beard; Mr Shipton, Mr Elkins agent, spoke to defendant on behalf of witness at tho request of ' witness. l"i not know what took placo betwe'en Mr Shipton and defendant. Did not think it was necessary to mako any arrangement after coming to Masterton. There was no arrangement as to paying the railway fare, Defendant offered to settle with the witness when leaving at the rate of £1 per week. Told defendant what i coat of turning tho balls would be, .id who lie sent iheoj to. i For the defence, Mr Beard stated [ that with regard to the turning of the t billiard balls, defendant liel'd himself % liable to the party who'had done tho . work, and demand might be mado on' bin at any time. Defendant had 1

told Bhipton, whoititroduoed plaintiff* that thu wuges he was in the habit of paying was £1 per week, Defendant, ill evidence, stated that ho had arranged with Mr Shipton, his agent, to employ the defendant if he was unemployed at tlio rate of & 1 per week. This was the rato of wages be had always puid to men in tho same position, and was tho current rate paid in MasteDon. To Mr Pownall: Expected that Shipton would inform plaintiff Hit wages he had undertaken to pay, Was not anxious for defendant to come, but bad wired to Bhipton that In wanted to hear if his friend was to come. Hud never paid a higher rate of wages for similar employment. T. D, Thompson stated thatfor the last sixteen years he hod been in business the rato of wages be had paid for a billiard marker (who also did other work) was £1 per week. To Mr Pownall: If the marker had extra duties as barman he should have asked for nioro wages. Had two men at different times who had done the bar work and only paid thorn £l per week. His Worship gave judgment for defendant, witnesses expenses 10s, Court costs 8s j counsel's fee £2 2b.