RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3489, 12 September 1882, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

This Dat. (Before Captain Preece, R.M.) DRUNKENNESS. '.. Robert Wilfred pleaded guilty to a charge of drunkenness, and was fined 5a and costs, tbe amount to be paid within one. week, or in default to be imprisoned , for 48 hours. Paddy Lynch, the notorious, was also fined 5s and costs, with the usual alterna- • tive, for a like offence. The prisoner, who -explained that " shure the pleece knew him well," asked for an hour's liberty to enable bim to raise the necessary funds for his emancipation, an indulgence that was granted by the Court. At the '~ expiration of that time there was, however, as might have been expected, no appearance either of Paddy or the money. LTJNA.CY. Ernest Passfield, on remand charged with lunacy, was dismissed, the medical certificate stating that he had been suffering from the effects of drink, and was now fit to be released. CIVIL CASES. Ashton v. Mantell.—Claim £10 for board, &c. Judgment by default for amount claimed, with coats and counsel's fee £1 Is. Lorrigan v. Robertson.—Claim £27 as as quantum meruit for work done while .ctingas the defendant's servant. Mr Carlile appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr | Lascelles for the defendant. It appeared f from the evidence that the defendant, a blacksmith, had in January last engaged .._ the plaintiff, a lad of 17 years, as an apprentice, the arrangement being that Loriigin should come for one month on trial, and X he rui.ed the defendant im services would be retained. The plaintift continued to work with the defeodact, and boarded at his bouse, up to the beginning ot July, at which time it was proposed to sign the articles of apprenticeship then ready, and all the necessary preliminary arrangements for 80 doing were completed, when the boy suddenly changed his mind, and left the defendant's employment without any warning of his intentions, further than that he would not agree to be apprenticed unless the defendant agreed to his (plaintiff's) terms, notwithstanding that he had previously expressed himself satisfied with the terms set forth in the deed prepared by the defendant. No mention of what amount of wages he wis to receive had ever been made during/ the whole of the time the plaintiff was tbe defendant, and it was only after he had left that any wages were demanded. His Worship, having heard evidence and counsel on either side, said it was very clear to bim that both parties were to blame in the matter. The defeudant should, on the expiration of the period of trial of tbe lad, have executed the agreement of apprenticeship, and not have delayed it so long as he did. The Court would, however, take into consideration the fact that the boy was partially taught his trade by the defendant during the time he was with him. Judgment was then given in favor of the plaintiff for £5 10s, or os per week for

22 weeks.'with costs £1 Bs, counsel's fee £1 Is, and expenses of two witnesses 9s. Somerville v. Otene Pomare.—Claim £31 8s 9d for goods sold and delivered. Defendant alleged that he had given 40 bags grain in full payment of his liability to plaintiff up to the year 1877, at which time there was a balance of £14 to his credit, and this he took out in goods at plaintiff's request. After hearing evidence His Worship gave judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the amount of claim, with costs and counsel's fee £2 2s. A number of other cases were adjourned by consent.