SECOND EDITION MAGISTERIAL.
ASHBURTON—THURSDAY. [Before 0. A. Wray, Esq., R.M.] CIVIL CASES. '" T. Leahy v H. Rands, claimed £2 15s. Judgment for plaintiff by default with ccsts. -James Tasker v 0. Leach claim £6 18s 9d. Plaintiff had received a cheque from Christchurch for part payment, and the case was adjourned for a week. John Orr and Co v M. Murphy, claim £1 11s. Judgment for plaintiff by default with costs.— Same v W. H. Grainger, claim £4. Judgment for plaintiff by default with -costs.—W. H. Collier. v M. Smith, claim £16 on a dishonored bill. Judgment for plaintiff by default with costs.—James Heseltine v G. H. Pope claim £4 19s 6d. Judgment for plaintiff Avith costs.—J. Henry vM. Scanlan, claim £4 18s 6d. Judgment for plaintiff by default for £4 14s 6d, 4s for drinks not with meals being disallowed. A HORSE TRAINING CASE. '■ ' Henry Ward v S. ami R. Alexander, claim £26 13s 4d for wages. Mr Cuthbertson for plaintiff, Mr Crisp for defendant. Plaintiff, a horse trainer, stated that he had been engaged by defendants on two different occasions to train horses at £1 a week. Defendauts contended that the rate was ten shillings per week. On the first occasion plaintiff was paid £1 a week as then agreed ; the second time there was no agreement, and plaintiff understood he was to be paid the same as before. On leaving he was paid £26 ; stated he was not satisfied, and went back some time afterwards and applied for the balance now sued for. W. Mitchell, horse trainer, gave evidence as to the usual wages of horse trainers. A. Cox, who had worked for the Alexanders, also gave evidence. For defendants it wafi contended that plaintiff was "stone broke," and was allowed to live at defendant's stable until lie got employment, and that certain sums paid him were given as pocket money, and that until November he was not employed. S. Alexander stated that plaintiff was first employed to look after a horse , for a few weeks, and was then put on harvesting. The second time plaintiff was simply at his place hanging about. Witness did the training himself, and had light boys to ride exercise, giving all instructions himself. Tried several times to get a billet for plaintiff. In November sacked a lad and gave plaintiff the place. When plaintiff left he was quite satisfied with the settlement made. Robert Alexander and Thomas Alexander gave similar evidence, and Henry Johns also gave evidence. His Worship held that plaintiff had been well paid up to November ; from that period he considered he should be paid 5s a week more. • Judgment for £7 5s and costs. P. Kelleher v. M. Scanlan.—Claim £17 for money handed to defendant in 1883 to be lodged in Post Office Savings Bank, and not so lodged, and interest. Mr Wilding for plaintiff; Mr Crisp for defendant. Plaintiff gave evidence that he handed the money to Scanlan to pay to Post Office Savings Bank in witness' name. Afterwards received a letter from defendant, saying that he had not been able to deposit the money owing to plaintiff's signature not being at the office. Defendant subsequently told witness he had lodged the money in his (defendant's) name, and it was all right. Later on received sums of £4 and £1 on account" Defendant stated that the sum he received from plaintiff was £10. Plaintiff said he could not deposit it in his own name, and asked witness to bank it for him. Had since paid the money to plaintiff. Further adjourned to next Court day for production of Savings Bank book. W. McClimont v A . Harvey, claim £10. Mr Wilding for plaintiff, Mr Cuthberbson for defendant. Plaintiff's evidence was that defendant had bought a heifer from one Hill, which was running on defendant's land, and instead of taking the one purchased had removed one of somewhat similar appearance, but a year older, belonging to plaintiff. Defendant's witnesses described both heifers, valuing Hill's at 25s to 80s, and plaintiff's at 15s to 20s, but there was no direct confirmation of plaintiff's evidence as to which animal was in defendant's possession, and plaintiff was nonsuited, his Worship remarking that such a case should never have been brought before the Court.
Permanent link to this item
SECOND EDITION MAGISTERIAL., Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 2467, 17 July 1890
SECOND EDITION MAGISTERIAL. Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 2467, 17 July 1890
Using This Item
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.