MAGISTERIAL.

ASHBURTON—rHURSDAY. -! [Before Mr 0. A. Wray, S.M.] Siray OA iraLK.--J. W. Timmina waß charged with grazing two horses on the public street. He admitted that; they were on the street on their way to the water, and might have eaten grass on rhe way, but they were not sent out for that purpose.; He was fined Is without costs.-—E. Nohelty was fined 5a and coats for the like.—E. MeKinuon denied having grazed three horses on the street, but after hearing the evidence His Worship inflicted a fine of ss, stating that if those cases continued to come before him he would have to increase the penalties. —Sproule Graham, for grazing a cow on the North Belt, was fined 5s and costa,—E. Gaskin was cautioned not to allow her horse to graze iv the street again, and was let off without a fine.—T. H. Robinson was fined 5s for ahorse that had "victualled free " for an hour in front of his shop. ■■ Affiliation.—J.J. Reddingtpn, who was in arrears with his payments to the extent of £6 in an affiliation cass, was sentenced to three months in gaol Civil Cases.—Mutton v Moffatt, £4 Moisoa v Faweett, £1 lla 6nL; Salek v Roche, 10s j Craighead and Berryman v Gill, £9 2s—judgment for plaintiff in each case by default.—Wise v Cameron, £24 6s 3d. Mr Cuthbertson for plaintiff Mr Wilding for defendant. The claim was for balance of wages alleged to be owing to plaintiff by defendant. Plaintiff said he waa engaged in March last as a cook by defendant at 7s 6d a week. He cooked at first at the Methven stable of the Springfield estate for seven men, but shortly after he was sent to the oM homestead where he had to cook for fourteen men, the number gradually increasing to twenty men. £1 was a fair week's wages for such a competent cook as plaintiff, against whom there had been bo complaints. There had been complaints about the mutton which had not been b ed, the sheep having died and been brought in to be cooked. He left of his own accord. By Mr Wilding— When ha was engaged he was to get. 7s 6d at the Methven stables. At the Homestead he did not expecr aay more men then eeveu. When he went there and found the number i of men he had to cook for he asked the overseer tor an increase of wages, and he said he would see his wages all right. In 1894 he i worked for seventeen weeks at 2s, in 1895 he | was getting 5s and 6s a week, He was a | cripple in 1894. In November last "got a cheque for £1 3s 9d, which waa the balauce after paying the store account. Told the manager the money was too small, and he said he would see the matter righted. Had received £1 a week when threshing.—George Sykea said he had known plaintiff for many 1 years, who was a good cook.—The defence was that plaintiff had been engaged at 7s 6d a week, and there had been no other agreement.—D. Mclntoah, manager at Springfield, said Wise had been pat on by him m cook at 7a 6d a week. The ordinary weekly wages of a, cook equal to his work was £1 and a bonus. Wise was supposed to be equal to the work at the Methven stables, and at the old homestead an assistant was sent to him, bufc Wise would not have him. The men complained of the cooking and witness told them that he was an old man, that they would not be at the homestead long, and it would bs better to put up with him till the end so that he should not go on the road. Witness never mads Wise any promise of more than 7s 61 a week. By Mr Cuthbeftson.— Gould not say how long Wise was at the homestead, but he would not deny that he might have been there thirty weeks The mat* sent to help was a competent cook. There was a butcher kept, a good man, and the mutton was of good quality. By the Bench—Was quite certain that Wise had never complained to him about the rate of wages, and witness had never promised to increase the wages. By Mr Wilding.—lt was not true that a sheep that had died of itself had ever beea cooked for the men. The best mutton in Canterbury was served at the men's table.—His Worship said the claim had not been established, and gave judgment for defendant.