RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume V, Issue 820, 3 June 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westpobt, Fbiday, June 2. (Before J. Giles, Esq.,E.M.) THOMAS CATO V. GEOBGE LAWBENCE TBABK. This was an action for the recovery of £l4 143 Id, being the balance of mi account due by the defendant for meat supplied. Mr Home conducted the case for the plaintiff, and Mr Pitt defended. A set-off had been filed, amounting to £2l. His Worship stated that where the set-off exceeded the amount sued for, he should he disposed to decline to award a defendant judgment for the balance, assuming that the set-off were proved. It would be for the defendant, therefore, to decide whether ho would withdraw the set-off, and bring a fresh action.

A iter consulting with his client, Mr Pitt stated that in consideration ol the distance from Eeefton (sixty-miles)i and the expense of bringing an action, the defendant would submit to the ruling of the Bench, and allow the setoff to remain as against the sum sued for. With respect to tho bill of particulars of the plaintiff, he must object to the first item of £5 13s 4d,whicl represented to be a balance of accoun*

broughfc' c Jfc»'rU'd, The defendant had received no particular* of this item. Xhe remaining items were admitted. The plaintiff produ< ed no books to prove the balance, and it was accordingly struck out. Mr Pitt then called evidence in proof of the set off. &eoige Lawrence Trask: I am a butcher and reside at Reefton. I know the plaintiff who isialso a butcher and resident at Eeefton. Hedischarged his mr.n on March 16th, and asked me to pay hitn bis wages which I did. He then told me that, if I would stop with him, he would give me current wages. £3 per week is the current rate of wages for journeymen, and I am pay big that to one at the present time. During the time I was with the plaintiff I was selling meat for myself I visited Garvey's Creek, distant 7 or 8 miles up the river, on a Sunday, packing the meat out there, and the plaintiff supplied me. I was with the plaintiff seven weeks altogether, but charge only for five weeks. During that time the plaintiff fell sick, and on April 7th he said that, if 1 would take charge of the business, he would pay me what was right. I have charged him £3 per week for three weeks, and, for two weeks when I was managing, at the rate of £6 per week. During that fortnight I sold 5 bullocks and 113 sheep. I am now now manager for the City Co. Butchery at a permanent salary of £5. By Mr Home : Under the City Co., I mean a number of persons carrying on business. Parris is the name of

one. Mr Pitt objected to the line of crossexamination. Mr Home thought it was habitual with Mr Pitt to interrupt him without reason when cross-examining a witness. His Worship decided that the crossexamination as to who constituted the Company might proceed. Cross-examination continued: The shop and property were once mine. I will not deny that I am one of the shareholders in the City Company. I am a butcher by trade, and have followed the trade for fourteen years. Mr Cato engaged me. He was not ill •at tho time. Ido not know why Cato dismissed the man he had, and I do not know the rate of wages he paid him. Cato charged me sevenpeuce a pound for meat, while he charged others fivepence. He lent me a horse

to pack the meat. lor the defence, Mr Home called Thomas Cato, who stated that he knew the defendant, and that he had never been in his employ in any way. He had never employed him during sickness. He was ill from March 25 to April 2. His wife looked after the shop while he was sick. There was a man employed to pack the meat, and a man named George Eobinson acted as slaughterman. He (plaintiff) did all the work himself when well. Early in March he had a man in his employ, whom he engaged in the Buller. The man worked for two or three months, but he had to discharge him, owing to dulness of trade. The mau was a good butcher, and his wages were very small—only 30s a week. He did not believe the defendant knew his trade. He might kill a sheep, but he did not think that he could dress a bullock. Mrs Cato made the entries in the day-book during his (plaintiff's) sickness. The defendant, he believed, made two or three entries, but not more. He required no manager. The average trade was 6 bullocks and 130 sheep per month. The witness was cross-examined, but

nothing elicited. By the Bench.—l had no conversation with the defendant in respect to the journeyman leaving. He was a good butcher, and 1 was sorry to part with him. Defendant came a fortnight after the man had left, and remained a week. The reason I let him come was

that he had no place to sleep at; the house he had been stopping in changed hands, and he was obliged to clear out. He discontinued sleeping in my place when I was ill, as I wanted the room for my wife to attend me. After hearing counsel, his "Worship decided that no contract had been proved, and gave judgment for the plaintiff in the amount claimed and costs, including £3 for mileage and 303 expenses of attendance. M'Merian v. Palmer and Hodges.— This waß a claim for £lO, damage caused by the defendants removing the cloths from a sluice-box, the property of the plaintiff. Mr Home for the plaintiff, and Mr Pitt defended. Judgment for the plaintiff for £3 and CObts. Brown v. Paten and "Ward.—Claim for £6 3s 3d, for goods supplied. Judgment for the plaintiff by default m the amount claimed and costs.