Magisterial.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume xxi, Issue 6077, 25 September 1903, Page 3

Magisterial.

ASHBURTON— FHIDAY.

(before C. A. Wray, Esq. S.M.) A W.'.QES DISPUTE. Wni. Hrowu v. John Meaclem ; claim for wagbs Mr Purnell for defendant. William Hrown, the plaintiff, deposod :— He was engaged by Meaclem on 10th J.uly. No arrangement was made, at the time, or afterwards with regard to wages. Was under the impression that defendant was going to pay him £1 a week as girdener. Defend mt was giving witness his lodging and tucker. When he was engaged;. Mrs Meaclem cntae to witness nnd said th-1 defendant wanted to see him. Witness I wont, and defendant said he had a few week's work for witness in the garden. Witness worked in the garden for three weeks. Objected to oart pig swi'l as he went to work as gardoner. That was the reason that he loft. Witness left w:thoufc being discharged. Was there for three full weeks. To Mr Furnell—Waa not a gardener; was staying at Broker's, opposite to Me iclem's. Did not object to live at Broker's while a man named Oaborne was there. Some conversation took pLice about Osborne when Meaclem sent for hitn. Said he was

going back to Wellington, but did not say he would stay just to spite Osborne. Had breakfast and tea at Meaclem's. Started I work on the 16th. Did not start work at 8 o'clock every morning. Worked till 5 o'clock and sometimes after. Was away one half a day. Did not get Meaclem's permission as he was not at home. Was not aware of being away longer than the half day. Waa away all day on the sth A ugust. Did not ask Meaclem's permission. Did not ask for any wages. Thought Meaclem would be man enough to pay him. Never sent in a claim for wages. ' * ■ ■ Mr Purnoll, having addressed the Court,' called—

John Meadem, the defendant, who deposed : —Broker lived opposite his house. Brown had taken a dislike to Osborne. There was a young woman in the case. When sent for, Brown came to see witness. Drown said he would come to slay with witness while Osborne was at Broker's. Brown came on the 14th July, but did not start work until the 16ch. Did only rough work whila he waa there, and not fine gardening. Brown did nob gee up until I nine o'clock in the morning. Brown worked j what hours he liked and when he liked. | One night he went to n party nnd did not return until next evening. Next morning witness went away before he got up, and in the evening when witness returned he had gone. Did not ask Brown to cart pig swill. Brown did not ask him for wiges; was on friendly terms with Brown. The more important gardening was done by witness.

To plaintiff—Mrs Meaclem told him to cart the pig swill. Mary Meaclem, wife of defendant, deposed—Was present at the conversation, and it was understood that Brown was to give his work in exchange for his board and '" tucker." Brown did not always work till five o'clock. Did not work regularly; was away two or three days altogether. Brown came back for some clothes afterwards, but dul not say anything about wages. Brown did about a week's work in threo weekp. . To plaintiff—Did not ask him to cart swill. The Magistrate said the evidence of the two witnesses went to show that plaintiff went to work for his tucker, and was not therefore entitled to recover anything. Judgment would be for defendant. civn, cases. Joshua Tucker v Thomas Cavill, junr., claim on two promissory nole3, £26 2s 7d.—Judgment for plaintiff, with costs. Nicoll Broa v John Johnston, claim £2 15s.—Messrs Maude and Harman for plaintiff/ Judgment for plaintiff^ with costs. ■ '■? i OLD AGE PENSIONS. J An old age pension having been renewed, j the Bench rose. I