CIVIL CAUSE.

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XIX, Issue 1783, 7 April 1863, Page 3

C I V I L C A U S E.

GiiVDaTovn ?■. Wooilyms, — Acno.v ix Trovfr, £7 7s. Od. This action was biought to recover the sum of £7 7*. for a watch belonging to pl.iintifF and detained in po->-■scsion by defendant. David Gladstone sworn, «tat~d : I am plaintiff in tins action. T got prow Mons fiom defendant dining January or Febmaiy. lie gi\o mo £2 on my watch, being in want of money. 1 paid for these provisions and the watch about n foihuyht since, and defendant lefused to return the watch until 1 paid a debt of li><-. which was contiacted pnitly (ona-thud ot it) by mjself, but 1 iefu->ed to pay the whole of the 10s. The debl, was contiacted at Mi Dinnin'" and defendant told mo tint he was socuiity, of which ] was uuawaio. I hid a contmct fiom the Race Com so Company, and a man named Jackson, who was the inn linger, told us that we weio to ceb burr at J">innin\ and it i-> the pnco (10s ) of this bcor that defendant is sectuity for. I'iV the Couit Jackson <;a\a us cheques which woif honomed, and that is the lonson I con^idi'ied him tho managei. Tlip cheques Ind refeicncc to the contiac!/ in question. Jackson paid us dining the time we weio on tor day wages. Cioss-cxamined by defendant . You did lend mo £2 on my watth. It wis lent on the lir^t day ot the races— beginning of Febumy. T have not the slightest Recollection what T said at the time. T have no lecoipt Sor the €2. (Plaintiff heie pioduccd a ieef>ipt for !)<l. ciiif; balance of account, receipt figned by Geoi^f* ■¥^ikie for Y. Woollains.) L?y the Couit • -\bout a foi blight sinco I paid £1 los., and a week since, if I lecollect lightly, I ]>,iid Od., which was the Lial.ince Why I got a leceipfc for the nd and not on the foimev occasion, was to >.how that I had p.iid the whole. 1 did think that th« leceipt for !)d. was to close my accounts with defendant J will piy one thiid of iho 10- ,as 1 still owe it. at li.i&t defendant sajs so, .uul "I do not want any b )ther." Fiodeiick Woollams being sworn, stated : I am defend mt in this ease. 1 Mipplird plaintiff with piovisioiM during January and TTebm.iiy. T lent him money to the evti'iit of £5. ] became also responsible for n debt contracted fit Dinnin's, which that lcceipL (receipt ]noducrd) ]>ut into oomt will show, and for which I h.wo not been fnllj paid. Theio is still ">>. Id. which is the whole amount I can legally claim. Jackson, the man 1 supposed to be the manager, asked mo to be icsponsible for iv fresh men t supplied to the nun who weio voiking — namely, plaintiff and two othci-.. I told Mr. Dinnin to «upply these men ; mid to i-how that 1 havo done so, T pioduccd thit luoipt. Jackson then called over plaintiff and the two men, mid said something which T could not swear to the purpoit of. doss-examined by plaintiff: Jackson called jou. You did Mvy, when that il I."=. (>d. was p-iid, that it paid foi watch and pro\Hons T s.iid that I placed ifc to your ciedit or w ould do bo. You did icquest me to allow the 10s. to lemain until T «aw Jackson and tho other two men mentioned. I did not consent to give you the watch until the lGs was paid, although I should have taken one-third; but I considered you lesponsiblo for the whole. By the Court : I did not '■cc the men afterwards. The ngieemtmt with tho l\aca Couiso Company was .a written one, and was to this effect, \i/., that we were to do what was requisite to the lace course for a- stipulated sum ; befoio this we weio working at day's wages. When we worked by the day we got 10s. per day, and two glasses of beer. When working by contract w o got £12 for the contract. The "Race Course Company wen; lcsponsible for tho two glasses of beer allowed each day. We looked to Mr. Wood for payment of day'i wages, and were paid by Jackson in cheques on M*. Wood. There was no written arrangement with regard to the beer. , Jackson was the person who gave ! us tho beer, but there was no airangemcnt at this stago of tho proceedings. } An arrangement was effected wheieby plaintiff pni<l } defendant one-third of the ICs.j and defendant put tho i watoh in Court*