RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume V, Issue 775, 11 February 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Friday, Feb. 10

(Before J. Giles, Esq., E.M.) CIVIL CASES.

Jones v. Harris. This was an action to recover the sum of £2l 10s, being the amount alleged to be due to the defendant as wages. Mr Fisher appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Home for the defendant. The defendant put in a set-off for £l4 ss, and had paid £4> 6d into Court. The plaintiff stated that he was engaged by the defendant in Greymouth, early in December, to proceed to Westport, and act as master of the ceremonies in connection with the dancing saloon at the National Hotel. He was to receive £2 a week ; and his passage was to be paid. After his arrival it was arranged that he should also perform the duties of cook, and receive 10s extra per week. The charge of £3 for extra work on the occasion of balls held under the extension of defendant's license was an usual and reasonable one.

Cross-examined by Mr Home: He had no communication with Mr Harris on board the steamer. Mr Harris dia not agree to give him a cabiu passage. The difference between the cabin and steerage passage is 10s. He had on a few occasions been a little merry in tho defendant's house, but was always capable of performing his duties. He never left the ball room to look after itself. He had been to Sheahan's on one occasion, and on returning sober at one o'clock, he found himself locked out, and had to sleep at the Post Office Hotel. He had performed the duties of satisfactorily. A loin of lamb was burnt in cooking, but it was more the fault of the stove, which was thin and worn out, than his own. William Slmkspeare, who stated that he acted as M.C. at the Nelson Hotel, was called to prove that it was thecustomfor landlords to pay theM.C. for services on special occasions, and 20s per was a perfectly reasonable charge. He had always been paid himself, and it was also usual for the landlord to supply gratuitously any refreshment for the use of the M.O.

Alexander Hamilton, a boarder at the National Hotel, stated that as far as his opportunities of observing the plaintiff, while in the defendant's employ, had served him, he had never seen him approaching a state that would interfere with the performance of his duties.

For the defence, the agreement was distinctly proved under which the plaintiff had undertaken to act as coo! and M.C. for £2 a week.

His Worship, in giving judgment, said that the dispute was merely one of accounts between the two parties. The charge of £3 10s for additional services as cook would have to be deducted, as also the £3 for alleped special services, as nothing had been mentioned in the contract with respect to such, and he could not accept evidence of custom elsewhere as binding in such a case. The claim would therefore be reduced to £lB. With respect to the set-off, all the items would be allowed excepting that for refreshments, and the item for butcher's meat, which would reduce the claim to £1 ?.n 6d, in which amount the plaintiff would obtain judgment with costs.

Brown v. Koland.—Claim for £2. Judgment for the plaintiff by default.

Sheldon v. Roland.—Claim for £3 17s. Judgment for the plaintiff by default.