RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 2041, 19 November 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A.G. Strode, Esq., R.M.) VAORANCY. William Anderson, aged about 12 years, was charged with being a neglected child within the meaning of the Neglected and Criminal Children Ordinance, 1567. It appeared from the evidence of Detective Farrell that the boy was the child of a prostitute who has been dead about four years, and his father died some time before. He had known the child for the iasi six years, and he never knew it to have any visible lawful means of support Last evening he found the child seated on the doorstep of a house in High street, crying bitterly. Detective Thomson remarked that although the Reformatory was full at the present time, the Commissioner of Police thought that this was a case in which a point should be strained to gain the child admission. Tbe Magistrate ordered the child to be sent to tl;e Industrial School for four years, and he brought ip. the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church, Civil Cases. His Worship delivered judgment in the case of Gray and another (trustees in the estate of Samuel Packham, contractor), v. David Ross, heard on Friday last, as follows : “I have given the various points raised in this case full consideration. With respect to the contention by the defendant’s counsel that the plaintiffs, as trustees, are premature in suing before a declaration of the complete execution of the deed is made, I am of opinion that there are no valid grounds for such a contention, the deed being perfectly valid in my judgment to pass to the trustees the debtor’s legal interest in the property expressed to be assigned by it. It v/opld be absurd to hold otherwise, as the effect would be that on the filing of a deed of arrangement under the Act, the whole of the debtors of the person filing the deed would be excused for a period of four months from the payment of the debts duo to his estate, and as the effect i» the case of a deed of composition would be the same as in the case of a deed of absolute assignment, the consequences would be rather serious to a debtor arranging with his creilitor bv that means. As to tbo contention by defendant’s counsel regarding section 183 of the Bankruptcy Act, I am of opinion that that section Woes not in any way affect the provision in the Resident Magistrates’ Act providing for notice of set-off; but the question is of little importance in the present case, as I have come to tbe conclusion that the building, which is charged in the plaintiff’s account at L4O, w is agreed to be given to the defendant in consideration of tile' first apd second items of defendant’s set-off, and I therefore 4i§|}f9' v that item of the plaintiff’s account. Further, I should not, under any circumstances, have allowed the defendant more than 10s 6d for each of the visits charged, and LI 10s in respect of the plans of the strong room—making L 3 Is fid jn the whole ; so that the defendant is noc greatly injured by his neglect to put in the set-off at the proper time. I consider the other items of the account satisfactorily proved, and therefore give judgment for jilaiutiifa in the sum of L 42 10s 6d, together with costs.

Cowan v. O’Neill. —On the application of Mr Wilson this case was adjourned for a fortnight. Win. T. Bowden v. W. Mudie, was a claim for L2 2s 9d amount of an lOU. Mr Stewart appeared for the defendant. The defendant was a customer of the plaintiff, who is a grocer in Walker street, and the lOU was given for groceries supplied. The amount had been collected by a Mr Grant, collector in the plaintiff’s employ, but who had been dismissed after the collection of this debt. Gran£ however retained possession of the amount collected as a set-off for wages he alleged to be due to him by Bowden. Judgment was given for the defendant. Thopms Dick v. J. W. Hutchison and Co. was a cl.bp for Lls 4s. The claim was made up as follows, wages due, L 3 4s ; one mouth’s wages in lieu of notice, IffO ; overtime, L2 10s. Mr Bathgate for the plaintiff,

and Mr Ward for the defendant. In September the plaintiff was, according to his own statement, engaged by Mr S. Hutchinson on behalf of the defendants, to act as engine driver at their brickworks at the North east Valley, at a salary of LlO per month. He had instructions to attend solely to the engine, and to take his orders only from Mr Hutchison. He worked on until about the 11th of November, when he received notice that his services were no longer required ; but no reason was assigned for his dismissal. The two days before he was unable to attend to his work, in consequence of illness. On one of those days he met Mr Hutchison in town, and he was told by him not to go to work while he was unwell. On one occasion he was ordered to work after five o’clock, the hour he had engaged to work to ; and. on complaining, he was to'.d by Mr Hutchison that he would see him paid for all overtime he worked. He had worked 50 hours extra, and for this he charged Is per hour, which was less than the ordinary charge Mr Hutchison always expressed himself satisfied with his (plaintiff’s) work.—The plaintiff’s evidence with regard to Mr Hutchison having promised that he should be paid for overtime, was corroborated by a fellow workman named Wilhelm, who heard Mr Hutchison make the promise. It was proved by other witnesses that the plaintiff was unwell during the two days previous to the date of his dismissal; and by an engineer who went to execute some work on the premises, that the condition of the engine was improved during the time the plaintiff had charge of it. The defence was that the plaintiff was not employed by the defendants. Mr S. Hutchison, in his evidence, stated he had the control of the establishment at the North-east Valley. A man named Crafts had a contract with the firm to supply bricks, and he engaged and paid aU the men employed on the works. In accordance with an arrangement with Crafts, he engaged the plaintiff on the former’sj behalf as enginedriver at a rate not to exceed LlO per month. He never agreed to allow him overtime. The plaintiff was to make himself generally useful and attend to the machinery. Witness, as representative of the firm whose property was used by the contractor, had the right of choosing and dismissing the engine-driver. Ho ordered the plaintiff to be dismissed because lie was absent from his work, because he did not attend to his work properly. S. Crafts, contractor, stated that he authorised Mr Hutchison to engage the plaintiff as engine driver at 8s per day. He was to work the engine whenever required, but was not to be allowed overtime. He consulted with Mr Hutchison, and requested him to dismiss the plaintiff, because he was incompetent, and because he had been drunk while at his work. The Magistrate, in giving judgment, observed that the principal question he had to decide was whether the plaintiff was a servant of the defendants or of Crafts. The whole circumstances of the case proved to his satisfaction that, to all indents and purposes, the plaintiff was the servant of the defendants, and they had the power of appointing and dismissing him. He was also of opinion that the engagement was a monthly one, and that the plaintiff’s absence on the occasions referred to was caused by illness ; and they were not sufficient to cause his dismissal. He had some doubt as to the items for overtime, and therefore could not allow it. Judgment for plaintiff, Ll3 4s, with costs. Snare v. Jane Mitchell, was a claim for L 4 1 Is. Judgment was given for the amount, and costs.