MILTON.

Bruce Herald, Volume XIII, Issue 1211, 11 June 1880, Page 3

MILTON.

Tuesday, Bth June. (Before E. H. Carew, Esq., K.M.) MOORE V. TOLCHEK. Claim, £2 2s od, balance of account. This was> an adjourned case, but defendant did not appear, his evidence having been taken at Lawrence. Plaintiff and a -witness having been examined, Judgment was given for amount claimed, with Gs cost of Court. EASTINGS V. WOOD. Claim, £26 lls, amount of 1.0. U. Judgment for amount claimed, with Court costs, 31s. CUNNINGHAM V. LEYEN. Claim, £3 4s, for work done. Judgment confessed, with 5a costs. GAULT V. M'LENNAN. Claim, £25, damages for wrongful dismissal. Mr Eeid for plaintiff, Mr Taylor for defendant, who pleaded "not indebted." This was a case in which the plaintiff, a ploughman, who had been engaged by defendant for a term of six months, sued for damages in consequence of having been dismissed by his employer several weeks before the expiration of the term agreed upon. The dismissal was the result of a row between the two parties, and of defendant's refusal to pay plaintiff the wages ' due to him. Several witnesses were called, and the case occupied the Court a considerable time, but the evidence adduced was of no public importance. His Worship gave judgment for £22 12a 6d, being wages for 5 months and 13 days, with 39a Court costs, and 21s professional fee. HAMILTON AND ANOTHER V. GEADY. Claim, £11 (>d, for threshing oats, and wages paid. Mr Reid for plaintiffs. Defendant pleaded indebted, and judgment was entered for amount claimed, with Court costs 15s, and profesaional fee 103 (id. CHAPMAN V. DOOL'EY. Claim, £2. Mr Eeid for plaintiff, Mr Taylor for defendant. Judgment was given, by consent, for LI and costs of Court, ss. The Court then adjourned.