GERALDINE.

Press, Volume XLVI, Issue 7263, 24 January 1889, Page 3

GERALDINE.

Wednesday, January 23. [Before C. A. Wray, Esq., R M.. Rev G. Barclay and H. W. Moore, J.P.'s.] Cry—. Cases.—W. Nolan v J. W. Larton. claim £14 wages for 14 weeks' work. Mr J. W. White for plaintiff, Mr F. Wilson Smith for defendant. Plaintiffs statement was that when he went to work for defendant the latter pleaded that money was scarce with him, and after some little persuasion induced plaintiff to take a young colt, which defendant valued at £14, in lieu of wages. The colt was te be broken in and handed over to plaintiff sound and quiet. On these terms plaintiff went to work, and worked eighteen weeks, fourteen weeks for the horse and four weeks at £1 per week. He received £4 in cash for the last four weeks. Plaintiff left defendant's employ before the horse was broken in, ana when he went for the colt about two months afterwards he was told it had got a lump upon its shoulder, and was out grazing on the road. He said the horse was ruined, but was assured that a blister would cure him, and on this assurance took the horse to Geraldine, where he showed it to one McCrea, who said the horse's shoulder was out and he was useless. Upon this he took him back to defendant, stating that the animal was useless, and claiming £14 wages in its stead. Afterwards received a letter from defendant's solicitors telling him that the horse would be pounded unless removed. Refused to take a useless animal, and received another letter stating the horse belonged to him, and not having been removed was now in tbe pound. Was willing to take the animal in settlement of the £14, if it had been broken in sound and quiet. When be was told in Geraldine the horse was useless took it straight back to defendant. Defendant stated that the plaintiff bought the horse when he first came into his employ, and was to work it out in fourteen weeks. He was to have the colt and was -O be taught ploughing by defendant for the fourteen weeks' work. After the Elaintiff left the colt, which was being roken in, by some means unknown to defendant, had a lump raised on its shoulder .and was turned out to get better. When plaintiff came back for the horse he took it away for a day, saying nothing about its baing injured, but afterwards came back with it and wanted £10 in lieu of it. as he said it was ruined. Mr White contended that the agreement was that plaintiff should get the colt sound and well broken in return for his fourteen weeks' work. Mr Smith held that the horse had been bought by plaintiff at first, and was therefore his property, and whatever happened to it while it was beins broken it was at plaintiff s risk. The Bench took Mr White's view of the ease, and gave judgment for the amount claimed and costs, with solicitor's fee £1 Is, and witne_ses' expenses 6s. In the case W. Miller v G. Perham, claim £3 12s for wages (Mr White for defendant), ,it was shown that plaintiff had sued the wrong party, and he was nonsuited, each party to pay their own coats. J. Turner v D. Mcllwraith, claim £3 nioney lent. Adjourned for a fortnight for the production of a witness. C. Bidder applied to have an order made by the Christchurch Court, by which he was compelled to pay 3s per week towards the maintenance of his father, cancelled. It appears that in October, 1885, an order was made that the three brothers should pay 13s towards the father's support. After a time the father became dissatisfied with this, and applied to the Court for the amount to be increased, when after bearing the farts, Mr Beefcham, who was the RM. at Christchurch. reduced the amount to'Ba each. Applicant was now married and had a family. He had lost all his money in farming, and could just manage to live by laboring. His father was married again, and bad sons by the second wife 18 years e»f age. The evidence was taken down for transmission to Christchurch, and the Court rose.