MAGISTRATE'S COURT, BALCLUTHA.

Clutha Leader, Volume XX, Issue 1033, 11 May 1894, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT, BALCLUTHA.

— ♦ Wednesday, Mat 9. (Before R. S. Hawkins, Esq., S.M.) Wilson, Cameron, & Co. v. John Dbapeh. — Claim, L53 on a dishonoured promissory note. Mr D. Stewart for plaintiff. Defendant did not appear. Since last court clay defendant paid L33 10, leaving a balance of Ll9 10s, for which judgment was given with costs LI 14s, and solicitor's fee LI 6s. A. E. Farquhar v. J. Linden. — Claim, L9 12s Id, goods supplied. Mr D. Steward for plaintiff. Defendant did not appear. Judgment for plaintiff with costs 10s, and solicitor's fee 10s 6d. Charles Shand v. Begg Bros. — Claim, L3. Mr J. E. Thornton for plaintiff, and Mr D. Stewart for defendant. Chas. Shand, plaintiff, said that in the season of 1892-93 Wylie was travelling Begg Bros.' entire Scottish Chief, and put up at witness's place in his rounds. The arrangement was that witness could either charge or if he gave a mare he would get a foal. Witness asked what he charged for guarantee ? Wylie said L3. Witness said he would give one mare, and if he did not leave a foal he would charge the price — L3. Wylie agreed to this. The mare did not prove in foal and he did not get the L3. To Mr Stewart : The charge for one night was 6s. He had never had any under the latter arrangements. If there was no guarantee two mares were served. If the arrangei ment was by the night and he stayed five [ days the charge would be 30s. A mare served was not payment, and Wylie did not offer to | pay for one night. i Jas. Wylie was leading Begg's entire in 1892-93, and was authorised to make all arrangements for camping. He went to Shand's on October 13 and asked if he would let witness stay the night and he would pay him for it. Later in the evening it was arranged that he was to serve a mare and Shand was to get the foal. He only stayed at Shand's five nights. The foal was not guaranteed. Shaud was to get the chance of a foal. The advertised charge for service was L3, but no foal no charge. To Mr Stewart : He did not guarantee a foal to Shand. Sometimes he got three mares whore he camped, and if only one proved in foal that one was allowed for the camping, but if there was no foal they did not pay for the camping. He offered Shand 30s merely to prevent trouble. Shand told him if he got the L3 out of Begg Bros, he would give him LI out of it. Thirty shillings was the charge without a guarantee. Harry M'Feeters heard Wylie say to Shand, "If you think you won't get the money I'll pay you myself," and saw Wylie take a pocket-book out of his pocket. Shand would not take the money from him. To Mr Stewart : Was not present when Shand offered W 7 ylie LI if he got the L3 from Bogg Bros. To His Worship : Wylie said that night that he was either to get a foal or the price of one. Mr Stewart .submitted that plaintiff's case must fall to the ground. Plaintiff's principal witness, Wylie, did not bear out plaintiff's statement, and there was no evidence as to an agreement for either a foal or L3. His Worship said the case for L3 had not been proved, but it was doubtful whether that was so as regards the 30s, Even that, however, did not seem to be payable, having served a mare without a guarantee at the price of 30s. He thought plaintiff's case must fail on the evidence of Wylie. Mr Thornton said he would take a nonsuit. Plaintiff non-suited with costs LI 16s, and solicitor's fee LI Is. John Nelson v. Robt. Stewart. — Claim, L2 15s 5d for five tons coal. Mr D. Reid for plaintiff. Defendant did not appear. Judgment for amount claimed with costs 11s, and solicitor's fee 10s Gd. Hugh A. Gunn v. A. Eobertson. — Claim, L4O for wages. Mr Thornton for plaintiff and Mr Stewart for defendant. Plaintiff in his evidence stated he worked 64 weeks for defendant at 12s 6d a week. During all of that time he was paid L2 and at another time 3s. He also got a watch. He was now getting 15s a week. Witness never asked defendant for money. There was no agreement. To Mr Stewart : Robertson also paid his insurance, LI 13s 4d, at his request. He never authorised Robertson to pay Somerville Bros, any money for him. When he left in October last he simply left the district without telling Robertson, his parents, or anyone, and made no demand for wages. He came back in February or March 1894, and then asked for wages. He did not sign the statement of account (produced) on February 17 showing a balance of L9 2s, nor was the j signature on the order (produced) to pay Somerville Bros, the L9 2s his. Witness was here required to sign his name, and the signatures were compared and handed to His Worship. Witness denied that any pen or ink was used or produced on the evening in February last when he was in Robertson's house. On the Saturday he gave Robertson three days to pay, and he saw Robertson again on the Monclay. To Mr Thornton : He never saw the statement showing a balance of L9 2s owing to him till to-day. To Mr Stewart : When he was at Mataura he received an account from Robertson showing that he had received from him in cash to the value of Lll 14s 4d. He was at Robertson's in the morning of Saturday, 17th. To His Worship : He told Robertson he had never had these things. At that time he owed Somerville LlO 8s 2d. He told his father to summon Robertson for the money. To Mr Thornton : It was on the Monday he gave Robertson three days. L4 was the price agreed upon of the watch charged L5 ss. Hugh Gunn, father of plaintiff : He considered 12s 6d a week a fair wage. Remembered his son applying to Robertson for payment on the Saturday and Monday without success. To Mr Stewart : He went to Mataura for his son to appear in the case, but it was not at his instigation that the case was brought up.

To the Bench : Before his son came back from Mataura he went to Eobertson and asked for a settlement, but the latter told him he had nothing to do with it. The rate of wages was never mentioned. He then went to Mataura to see his son. Donald Campbell said a young man of 17 who could work a pair of horses got from 15s to 17s 6d, and a boy to milk and. work about, 12s 6d. Alex. Eobertson, defendant, said the agreement was for 6s a week, and if plaintiff could manage a little ploughing he would get 8s a week. When the boy left it was a fortnight before he knew where he was. It was an understood thing that witness was to pay Somerville, though he had no written authority to do so. When the boy came back he came to witnes's house and a final settlement was arrived at, an order being given by plaintiff to defendant to pay Somerville Bros, the balance of L9 2s owing to plaintiff. He solemnly swore that Gunn signed both the documents — Somerville Bros.' order and final settlement of accounts. Plaintiff was working at the mill on the Monday, and promised to meet witness at Somerville's in the evening to see about the balance of the account owing by Gunn to Somerville, To His Worship : He had no interest in Somerville's account. It was merely understood that witness was to pay Somerville out of plaintiff's wages. Mrs Frazer, daughter of last witness : Gunn came to her father's place just before dark on the 17th, and at her father's request got writing-paper and ink as Gunn wanted to sign an order for him to pay the balance of his wages to Somerville. She saw the signed order either that night or the folloAving j morning. Gunn was working at the mill on Monday and had dinner with them. Mrs Eobertson corroborated last witness. This concluded the ease. I His Worship said that the Tiuck Act pro- | vided for wages being paid in cash. How did that effect the present case ? Mr Stewart contended that an account j stated, as was the case here, was not affected iby the Statute of Frauds. This was as bindi ing as the Truck Act. ' His Worship was not inclined to take that ; view, and after looking at the cases quoted ' by Mr Stewart, said that these did not affect 1 the present case. j Mr Stewart said the case was not one in i which costs should be allowed. ' His Worship concurred, and after going | into the accounts gave judgment for L6 17s, j and costs of court 15s.