HAMILTON R M COURT. Thursday, 6th April, 1876. Before W. N. Searancke. Esq, R M and A Cox, Esq, M H R J P.

Waikato Times, Volume X, Issue 606, 8 April 1876, Page 2

HAMILTON R M COURT. Thursday, 6th April, 1876. Before W. N. Searancke. Esq, R M and A Cox, Esq, MH R JP.

BKK4CK OF IiITOVXDim ACT. Chitrieß Mvlhons pound keeperr, Hamilton, wai cWged by Henry S Owen, with k;iTing committed a bronfk of the Impouudmg Act,. Mr Jlay apjj«>ired for informant. C*.*) «d|ourn«(i until iujkL Oourt d^.

KBIOHPOC3S QUiniIXLH. William and Sarah Edwards wore charged with assaulting John aud Eliza Steaduian at Hamilton Eust on the 2Pih of M»rch last. MiHay appeared for defendants. The following evidence wrs adduced. John SUntdiiiitu deposed — I am a brioklayir residing at Hamiitou E.ist. On Sunday the 245 th March, about 4 o'clock sn the afternoon th« mule delcnl.-vnt iuihd to my house and asked if I was at lwmi, Mj t ife naid -yen. I went our, to "'(•rt Li n in the back room. Edwards taid, "\V hut is it I owo }'ou p " lroil, "a piecj of tmi'jir" Edw.irdi* *:iid "-ye*, and 4v for pot-.-toe«." I replied, " J will not charge, you for the potatoeo," & I ward in id. ho did act waut me to uitc lum .Mijtlnnu. A'v wtfu iold me thnn thor e vr«re ,i few ru:o-» Km EiimrtU had obtduod lruin her that !,ad n< .be n p,n.l tor. Mis «,<lwar<la tKvou»on nuno ln-r npp, ar^r.eo on the ace 10 and wuileJ mj wn«.toroine forwari «nd tuy wlist i she to i.i y lotuio Her. My to tho door wuls the child m her arms and Hated pnrticulai* ol the wirious ttoref. Mr *'.d Mis 'idvuidi culcd-my wila a liar. Afterward* Eitwivrde sat down on the door step and laid " 1 want to sottld the mutter quietlj. You once told me JaCt that I wub no bricklayer, and 1 te!l yju "jou .iraa lur." I cmi liy more bricks thuu ever jou Vnew how. I replied, " JJUudd, .you never knew how io lay a brick in your hfi\" Al^ 7*ifo then orilere 1 Edwards and h» nllo off oui preiniots, wiioroupou Mrs 'Edwards cmnc and cuugut hold of my wife with one hand by the hair of her bond aud hit her on Lha fuco with her clenolie I fidts. I tlieu vruat to tbi> atsisUnca lofiuy wife when tboLh Edwaris *id hm wi'e taolcled me and struck mo sororal times. tVh.n I got away from ir.em I went and "cot down." EJ»e,rd» left, but ciine in aguin A fow mum tea tiftjrwardo uud struck ma again three times on tho head. My little children slif)rily afterward* came home frcin •ehooi aud I geufc the u after (Jonstublo Coylc. hi'uj. dteadnmn, wife of informant, oori-obo-lMtt-d tho evidence of nor hu»bund ; and boing or M-erwcined bj Mr Hay, »-H: I do not know v»uy the delondiint cimo to my house that d.vy. I h^d previously statnd that Mrs Edward* had received r letter from her brother containing a OcrUin uuuibur of aUupi, which »he U»d conTerted to hor own use. EiwAtds did, uot mention about this letter, but merely referred to wb»t wai owing by him. I did not use any b»d laoguage to Mm Edwards that day. Oa a previous daj Mrs Edwards and I had a fow wordi, and I might then hare sAid loraething that I ought not to h«To said ; but I ue? er uaed aoj verj bad Ismguago." This concluded the complainanfc.e cise. Mr iiay briofly addnssed the Court for the defence. He submitted that, «i the evidenco •would thow tho assault was justi6ed, and called William Edwards, one of the defendants, who deposed —l am a briokla/er, rosidmg 'iv East Humilton j remembrr the 26th of last month ; «aw defendant at his house that day about loma •tamps informant's wife had reported my wife had received "unbeknownst" to mo; my wife ncootnpanied me, as I told h«r unless she faoed Mrs Stcidman I should behere the way guilty ol keeping the stumps. Arriving at Steadman's houi» I enquired for him, aud asked him what I owed him. JL-said, " We don't waat.any bother." VV« •ei tied about some timber and then spoke of the store*, when Bteadman said, " My affair* are my affairs, and raj wife's affairs are her own." I told Btoadni(ta that it was a blessed lie (for swoar I don't), and he raid I was a b ■ — liar. I then accused him of reporting that I was bo bricklayer, mid he uaid h* had not repeated i' aqiin. Defendant's wife then began to speak about the stamps, and my wife struck Mr* S'eadtnau. J>e'cadant'a wiU ««id we w<*r« a fair oarfc lot (meauing a gipsy lot (it home, or people which travelled to fair-), and * d d bad lot •ltogethet*. I caw the whole lot fcrtmblinj together in ths house, und I do

belief* ir.y wife struck Mm Steadmaw. I won't lie in the matter. I might have gone for Steadman. I wenr in «nong»l them to protect my wifo. When we were going »way Mrs Steadman nai'i, " Yi»u b thinp, 70a will hearmore-of thi*." We then left. The report spread about by Sfejidraan is likely to dumtge me in getting a livelihood. By tbo Conrt— l might hare hit Sfeadman more thnn once I was in ft stats of excitement, and Rcsroel.r Knew what 1 was doing. Sarah Edwards, wife of last witnes*, corroborated the eridrnce of her Imsband. She denied haring •truck Mrs Bteadman with her clenched fist, but admitted baTing struck her with her open hand in consequenceof her atranre language. Could not swear that SUadman had struck her, but Mrs Steadman did. Daniel Robinson, who wm residing lit Mrs Steadinan's house on the day in question, in part corroborated the evidence adduced. All the parties concerned were " bamboozliag" »nd knocking eafh other about io the room, and witness could not say who were striking and who were not. "In the old country ■»' fair lot meant people who would just as Boon take a h'acre of spuds and dig them up in the night as t*ke a leg of mutton off a sheep." Calling a man a b— — — liar, was Imolj, in my opinion, to c»use an assault. This concluded the eTidence. "" The Bench considered tha ussult was prorolced, and, not being of an aggrayated nature, dismissed the case, each patty to pay thoir own oosti.

CIVIL BIDX. John Shabt v. William Kooh.— Claim £15, for fruit treei supplied to defendsnt. Mr Hay for plaintiff; no »ppe»ri»nce of defendant, and judgment for full amount el»imed and coito.

JUDGMENT "DEBTS. T H W Mob/its t Jacob Batter —Claim £3 Hi 7d. Mr Hay (in the absenc* of Mr WhiUkrr) appeared for plaintiff, and examine! the defendant, Jacob Bauer, who itated that h« Lad lately been laid up Tit.li a bad' leg, bewas earning nine shillings a day now, as carpenter, bad a large faimlv to support, and permanent employment wu altogether uncertain. Mr Hay applied for an order enforcing payment as the defendant erinced no desire 'whatever to pay the debt. Tho Resident Magistrate— l would ttrongly adTisa you Bauer, to join the G-ood Templars •gain, or you will be getting into worw difficulties. The Bench ordered the judgmeat debtor to pay 7» 6d per week until the full amount was paid, or in default of any luch payment, to be luipnsoced fur one month. THW Morris t. MoAtJStAND —Claim £14 15s 2d. Mr Hay (m the absence of Mr Whitaker) ap|/oaro<l for the plaintiff. Defendant, produced a letter from Mr Le Quesne, offering to pay 5s a wtek as long as defendant was in the writer* employment. la the absence of plaintiff, Mr Hay, with the conspnt of thr Court, accepted the-proposal, in default, of any such payment the defendant to be imprisoned for three months. Atfecs Ross v 0 G Quick.— Claim £20, being one nion-th'o wages in heu of a month's notice, £16 ; und £4 for board and lodgings when in Mr Quick's employ. Mr Madden 'for plaintiff, and Mr Hay for defendant. AnijUß Boss, late captain of the p. s. Quickstep, deposed— l had an agreement with Mr Quick last year respecting employment on the p. i. Quickstep. 1 have received ray master's certificate from the New Zealand Ceropanj. I lost it at the wreck of the schooner Jane. I agrerd with Mr Quick as master of the p. s. Quickstep, for £16 per month add found. Nothing -vras said on either iide about notice The usunl notico is to nite or take a month's not'icp when wagps are paid by the month. I entered on mj duties about the 24th of December. 1 remember haring a conversation with Mr Quick about wages of teamen. I understood from him that I wai to engage nil seamen "upon trial" liable to ~be discharged at a moment's notice. I engngei men nfter the first monlh upon these ti»rm». At the time of thiii eonverealion I sngßeste'l to Mr Quick the nrffifiabilitv of ray remaining in his service upon the same term*,' lint ho vouM not tgrae to this and rn\A 1 wa? quite different to the others, und that he would site 1 * to the agreement already rau )e I received wn,<?fj fiom Mr Quick for oio month, »t tho rate of £16 por mouth, when he dismissed me I gavthim a receipt for the amount ; he did not givme a month's notice and give no renoon for ditonisnng me. I thought he onlr wantH to square up until that time. When he dismissed mo I immediately a*ked for a month's notice or i month's wac;cs. I entailed the expense of £4 for board and lodging at Onehunua, whpu in Mi Quick* employment. Mr Quick told me at Mercer, in the course of conversation, that he did not wish to pay mo weekly. T3y Mr liny- 1 am not aware thut Mr. Quirk was put lo any inconvenience bv my not having my -mnofer's rortiCcite to produce. I (iiJ not bring fie Qmckst-p from the Mann kin to Mercer. I employed a certificated master myeHf lo bring the boat to Mercer, f hold a certißcat" n* master o f the p. s. Bluenose. I had frequent conversations with Mr Qn.rk m Di'comhVr. I did mt apply to Mr Quick for emplovmen>. Defondaut asked me if 1 would take th* misteMbip of a steamer ho wns building. Wo agreed tosether for £16 per month. I don't think I did lead he defendant to bolinve th it I was getting '£16 per month from the Waikato Steam Company. No hiug was said about notrice or ' how wages were to be paid. The receipt produced i», I believe, in my own handwriting, a«d is not a settlement m full. Mr Quick soemed very anxiou* to get the receipt. Thn second receipt v>aa for money 'Coeived ; Mr Qui'-k -paid me the monoy ou account. Tlm receipt ii in f-ull for all ( demands for wago» up to that dute. After my dismissal I asled Mr Quick for the £4 for board and lodging before I oousultrtd my lawyer. The agre n ment vith me ur»n not for one montli only- 'I rauiembpr about the 10th Or llth of lait Janunrv seeing Mr ' Quick respecting seiI>ectinK BOainou'u wages. Iho men brought from OnehuuKa. dul not plo.»^e Mr Qui^k, and he wished ethers engaged as I have •atnted, on trial, liable to be disofcar^ed at •% moment's notice. I wiehcd to go upon the «atno arrangement as tho won, but Mr Quiok objected to this Mr Long, of Morcor. was present, *nd I believe he heinl this part of the conversation. By tho Court — Mr Quick, Mr Long, and I were all walking together at tho time of the conversation. It is not usual for masters to have a written agreement. I have been master of Waikato Steamers for the last twelve yean, and never had a written agreement. Both th« receipts > produoed were signed at the nme time. W G Cellum captain of the 1 « • Waikato, depo«ed—l am a Master vlariner trading in ths Waiksto river. I have be»n five yean off and on thu trade. It has bean the custom with me to receive either a month's notice or a month'a pay. It is distinctly understood a monthly lervsnt receives a months' notice or wages. A man would scarcely be mad enough to rnn a steamer upm waekly wages. It has occurred twice on this trade that ray s»rvio«s were temporarily despensed irith on accouiit<of steamer being laid up, &c, and eaou time- 1 received -a month's wages. By Mr Hay — I never signed any agreement with tho steamers' Company, but I had a verbal understanding of a months' notice or a month* pay. The fact of my receiving £14 on two occasions m lieu of a month's notica is sufficient to show this' understanding. My employers *rould require a months' notice and I presume Captain Robs would be m the sum* position. CQ- Quick, owner of the • n Quickstep being *worn, stated—.! do not know the oustont of aleainer ou ners regarding wages. I know what my custom is. I remember seeing a Mr Marahall regarding taking the billet as Master before I engaged Koss, but ho had a written agreement to giv« a month's notice to his th«n employers. My Krr»n£ement with Captain Boss was a weekly one. I demanded a receipt from Captain Ross "'in full ot all demands." I, told him at the time that I wanted to square up with him. He us«d to come to me if he wanted money. I bay« my own rtutona (or disuniting Rots, but I shall

not sf ate thorn in Court. Whatever arrangements I made Marshall have nothing to do with the case. I did not p»y Marshall as much as Rom. When 1 settled with him he had £2 to receira. I agreed to pay Marshall monthly, but it.WM alio agreed that too notice abonld be required from me if ho did not iuit me. I eaid at Urn time I did not want any more Ross business I did not itJite my reason* for dismissing Rosa. He did not su>t ny and I dwnaUsed him. O*pt Ross was to get £16 a m >nth and found aboard the steamer, for which I arranged with | the steward. I remember Ro« being at One- ! hunga very well. The steward was not on boarS the *esael at the time. The steamer was not finished at the time, and Ross wa» doin? nothing for me. I requested Ross to go down to Ouehun** in December, about the time th» itearaer should hwe beon finished. I was never billed with the £4, until I received the summoni. My at reement with -Ross -was £2 per week whita tha ship «« being completeo, and £4 per week '•when running, so he has received £2 per week in excess for-sererel weeks. I doa't know anythiDg about hii board. I rant My whea the steamer left O^ehunga, I cinnot say whether the Quickstep was carrying the mails during tha time Rosn was Captain 'of her. By the Court — Previous to obtaining receipt from Captain Ross I told him -1 was about to dismiss him. <I left a check in full oh all demand* •which he refused at firit, bat ultimately accepted. This was plaintiff's case. Mr Hay then examined Kr 'Quick «s plaintiff — Ross agreed to take charge of theflteamer when completed. He came down ro Ooehun»a, but the boat waa not ready. He was torscewe £2 per we*k urftil the steamer ■wns Pes9y. >T 'peter agreed to pay his board while at Qnehunßn. He told roefbe was get ing £16 per month frora'th* company, and I agreed'to giro him the same when the etocmer .was running. 'Nothing <was-caid about notice. Afcont the ' latter end 6f January I modified my arrangements witirßoas, and told him to engage seamen only by the week ; I said at the time, "This does not Tefer 'to you." Plaintiff- replied, "No; treat -us all alike. 'I would rather be oa the same footing as the ojen," and I said " Very well," If he hvl lfftUt a mouisi it's notice it -would hare curel me no incon renience. I rwuember the sth February. Tha receipt produced was given br Ross to me upon that day. ITemadeno further claim then. 'I told him that he was dismissed, and in consequence of such notice he gaye me a receipt in full of nil demands. He understood that it /rasa full Battlement. By the Court — The amount of the cheque I tore up was for the same amount as well as I can remember. Lcanuot say whether the chequ« w« for £8. I am quite rure that when Ro»i proposed to be -placed upon the same footing as the mm that I ngreed to it. H don't renumber saying 1 would stick to former agreement. R. 0. Long, «g#nt for Mr Quick at Mercer, depoae'd— Remtmber a coiwrsation between plaintiff, defendant, and -myself in January' l«t regarding watres and employing man. Mr Quick said, " From this out I'll ti»y« no serrants that I oannot discharze a^any time " ' Captain Rom said, " I wish yon would put me on the same footing," to-whieh. Mr Quick agreed. I am certain Ross understood then that he was liable to b« discharged at * moment's notice. There 1 is -no doubt m my mind whateyer, as the language -was so plain. ' Captain Bcsr knew he was being discharged when be signed receipt in full of all demands and made no-other claim at the time. By Mr Madden— l onnnot say whether Ross asked whether be wM-to be dismissed. He refused at first to sign in full of all demaridi. 'I did not tell Captain Rat to day that 1 thought the affreemeut was monthly. I have betnr in Mr Quick's employment since ,the steamer came to Mrecer. No inconvenience would have occurred, so for m the running of the boat is concerned, if the master was'dismissed at a moment's notice, but more lubour would derolre on thf men. Tha usaga with the W S N Oo is a* monthly serrant« for all their employe*. The first agreement be* twe«n Quick and Rom w»« £16 per month. I made no alteration in the boots regarding CaDt.ain RcsV altered terms after the conversation 'l ha»e re'at^r? took pltce By Mr Tlay — "Rois folil me proyious to the sth Fi-bniAry tW he thought he'd lrare, ns he wag g.-tdno duk of it ; Boss made no c\svm for £4, i and I understood that the receipt produced wa« a settlement in lull. Tfua ooncliiiied "the evidence. His W )r#hip, in !»ivinp judgment, snid : "^fter pom? over Hie evidence T find it of a yery con- ' tnrlic'orv natur«, and m<tny material pom's are mot difficult to exolain The conversation whibb, toot nlnce in January is also not sufficiently explicit. Altogether, I shall fall bobk upon the origm.il r.grcemenfc made between the contending purtioß and thfl usace* and customs of the Waik-vto riTci". I giy« judgment for plaintiff for £16 wit.li costs (£5 15s). I should strongly recommend that in future, when there is any departure from the ordinary usage and custom of luring men, that a written agreement to that effect bo m.i'lc." Mr Hay requested a copy of Ihe evidence wftik a view of appealing against His Worship* d>cioion uoon a point of law, or applying for a rohtunng of the case. Tr.e Court then rtdjonrnrd.