RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume I, Issue 19, 8 November 1879, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, 7th November. (Before Mr F. Guineas, R.M.) FURIOUS RIDING. William Lindsay and James Tindall were charged with furious riding in East street on Saturday evening last. They were fine! £1 each and costs. A “ ROUSE-ABOUT. ”

Smith v. Corsbie.—£l4 for wages.

Mr Purnell appeared for defendant. Plaintiff deposed to having been cook for defendant at 25s a week. Defendant, who is manager of Alford Station, told him after some time to go fencing but he refused to leave the kitchen. The R.M. here remarked that the summons had been addressed to Mrs Corsbie.

Witness continued —He had not received any money. Cross examined by Mr Purnell—Gave Mr Corsbie notice on Monday night and left on the following Thursday. Was employed on July' 21st at £1 a week as “ rouse -about.” Was engaged as a general station hand, and worked four weeks as such ; then went on as cook. Mr Corsbie said he would give him 25a. a week then. Witness worked 8 weeks as cook.

Two different accounts were here read out to witness, showing various discrepancies. In one case that plaintiff claimed £ll 5s 3d, and in the other £l4. Witness admitted having received goods to the amount of £4 14s 9d from Mitchell and Turner. Admitted having received 16s worth of stores. Asked Mr Corsbie for payment when leaving, but never gave him a bill. Knew that £6 5s 6d was paid into Court as payment in full last week, and was willing to take that as payment in folk

Lewis Corsbie, Manager Alford Station, engaged Smith at 20s per week as station hand. Did not promise him any advance in his wages when he put him on as cook. The men complained of plaintiff being dirty, and when witness said so to him he gave a week’s notice. After some conversation with him he used some strong language, and left at once. Would have paid him if he had asked. When lie sued witness a week ago, witness paid the amount due into Court. Cross-examined by plaintiff—You did not ask me for wages and I did not tell you to go to the devil. Judgment for £5 10s 3d, without costs. UNPAID ADVERTISING. Weeks and Dixon v. Harris. Mr Harris applied for a nonsuit on the ground that no date was attached to the summons. Granted. In the case of the same plaintiffs v. Harris and Ireland, Mr Harris claimed a nonsuit on the ground that neither the plaintiffs or defendants were described to disclose any averment of partnership. His Worship considered it to be a pity that the plaint contained technical errors, which rendered the summons of no avail The objections were trifling and frivolous, but being legal, plaintiffs must be nonsuited. a neighbors’ disagreement. Beckett v. Cass.—Claim £2l9s 9d. Mr Harris for plaintiff, and Mr Purnell for defendant.

Henry Beckett, farmer, Wakanui, deposed to having grazed sheep for defendant. The charge of l£d per head is a fair one. Also lent mm a roller, for which plaintiff charged 2s 6d per day rent. _

Cross-examined by Mr Purnell —Bought the sheep on May 23rd from Cass at the same price as he had paid for them, and was to pay after harvest. Cass sued me for the sheep in May, and I confessed judgment. 1 did not put in any set-off at f.W. time. I did not know the rules of the Court. I did not know what a set-off was. I have let the case wait so long because I had not the money to take legal proceedings. Francis Cass—Soldßeckett the sheepat a cheap rate, as they bad the grazing, and I v, lambs in, with time to pay MV.- t-vu-e. ■ A.-kr.nvlcdicc' ! - 10 charge for tvoil'-v. Baskott main no claim for r.-iinr until 1 sued l;im. I chr-rgc him in \.>v {ii-t oil for hire oi harrows, dray and tank, at what I consider a fair charge. I looked upon the loans of the plant as neighbourly actions. Cross-examined by Mr Harris—The money for the wool from the sheep was divided; they were shorn in November. His Worship struck out both' summonses, the claims for hire of rollers, etc., and gave judgment for £ll6s 9d. Each to pay his own costs. DISPUTED FENCING. Wm. Deaton v. Henry Moffakt. —Claim £8 9s fid, balance for repairing fences and sowing grass seed. The case had been adjourned at the reques of the defendant for the production of evidence. Mr Liddle stated he had examined the work, and estimated that the repairs done should be performed in three weeks ; and 8s per day would be a fair remuneration. [Plaintiff had claimed 6 weeks days at 34s per week —£11 9s 6d, and gave credit for £3 paid on account.] Could repair 6 chains per day himself of such a fence. Nine chains were washed away and about 60 damaged. Tyson Hodgson—Had inspected the fence. Should say a fortnight or three weeks would do it, and I would give 7s a day for such work. The original value of such a fence is about 3s 6d per chain. About 60 chains were repaired, and should say the average vale of the work would be Is 3d per chain. Wm. Bennison—l engaged Deaton to do the work. There are about 300 chains in the fence altogether. The time charged was actually put in by Deaton. Wm. Deaton deposed to having done the repairs. Tried to plough furrows for sods for the fence, but in some places had to carry the sods some distance. Judgment was given for £3l2s, and £3 18a.

a “ competent” ploughman. Demuth v. Leahy.—Claim, £lO. Mr Purnell for plaintiff; Mr O’Reilly for defendant. Plaintiff deposed to having worked for defendant. Did not go on to learn ploughing, but was' a competent ploughman. Was there eight weeks and three days, John Leahy stated that plaintiff had engaged with him on the understanding that he was to work three or four weeks f jr nothing, to learn ploughing. He did not know when left alone how to set his plough. Good ploughmen’s wages are 25ar per week. He left without notice, ap4 faf Thought it would take

a man 12 months to learn to be a fair ploughman. L. E. Corsbie—Have seen plaintiff at work. Am sure he is not a good ploughman. Present wages for good ploughmen, and since June Ist, have been £1 per week.

Wm. Revans deposed to being present when plaintiff offered to go to work for a month or so for nothing to learn ploughing. Plaintiff went to Watkins afterwards, flax cutting. J. Rappingdale said Demulh had done ploughing on his farm and to his satisfaction. It took witness six months to learn ploughing. Judgment for £4 without costs. HE WASN’T A SUNDOWNER.

Madden v. Leahy.—Claim, £l9, for wages. Mr Purnell for plaintiff; Mr O’Reilly for defendant.

A set-off was filed of £7 7s 3d, of which £3 7s 3d was admitted.

Plaintiff deposed having gone to work for Leahy. No agreement was made as to wages. Worked 19 weeks, and had received Is 6d on account. Had been there in three previous winters. Did not demand wages before. Did not loaf about. Was fetched from Morgan’s to do fencing. Nothing was said about wages. Did not ask for any, and was ordered away from the farm. John Leahy—Defendant stopped at my place for two winters previous to the last one, and I generally gave him him a few pounds when he went away. I consider his board and cb/thes, &c., were sufficient payment for his labor. Plaintiff has done some gorse sowing and fencing, for which lam willing to pay him, Mr Corsbie deposed that he had seen plaintiff stopping at Leahy’s for three winters, he went there for his winter quarters. Thought 10s per week as much as he was worth.

Judgment for £l4 ss; less set-off £4 17s 6d—£9 7s 6d and costs. Friedlander Bros v. Findlay.—Claim £8 3s. Judgment for amount claimed with costs.

Lancaster v. Bullen.—Claim £l7 9s 9d, Judgment for plaintiff. Miller v. Carlton —Adjourned till 21st,

MR LEAHT’S FENCES.

Cross & Jenkins v. Leahy—claim, £6 11s 8d for fencing. Plaintiff Cross deposed that he had erected about 40 chains of sod fencing. After we had worked a day or two Leahy said he would not bind us. but that if we liked to go on he would not be particular to another shilling a chain, and we went on and finished the work. He. made no complaint. He has not paid any money to me.

Cross-examined by defendant—You told us that the land could be dug anywhere. You sent us back over the work, and showed us how to strain the wire. You told us not to mind making the ditch on one part of the fence. John Leahy said he had not paid the men because the work was not completed, and as he wanted the ditch more than the fence, for the purpose of getting soil to grow gorse on. The bank itself was made in a very slovenly manner. The ordinary price of such a fence could be done for 6s per chain. Told them if they did not like to go on with the work they could knock off.

Mr Rippingdale gave evidence that the work was done well at first, but afterwards in a slovenly manner. As no backing had been put against the bank it had fallen down. I don't call a fence finished without backing. 1 could make 10s a-day at the work, and am 60 years of age. Mr Wilkie gave evidence as to the value of work of this nature. Had known a similar fence put up at 3s 9d per chain, but in good times such a fence would be put up at 6s, and a good workman could do two chains a day. The magistrate said he could not form an idea as to the value of the work done, as no evidence pointing to that had been given. Judgment would be given for the full amount and costs—in all, £9 14s Bd.