THE COURTS.—TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 7876, 8 April 1889, Page 2

THE COURTS.—TO-DAY.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. (Before E. H. Carow, Esq., R.M.) Woods v. Bunting.—ln this previouslyheard case His Worship now gave judgment, saying that the evidence showed that plaintiff's property had been destroyed by lire, and the fact was not disputed that the fire came from defendant's land. It was stated that defendant had, on at least two occasions, been seen to light fires to clear Ins land, but defendant denied that, and said that the fires came from Gibbs'a land, The impression on his (His Worship's) mind was that defendant lit fires and kept them going to clear his laud, and that ho was the cause of the damage. Judgment would be given for plaintiff for Lll 15s, with costs, Judgment was given for plaintiffs by default in the following cases:—City Corporation v. Cathcrino Walker, claim, L 9 10s, for rates; Equitable Insurance Association v. Jacob Nichols (Milton), L2 lis 7d, for calls; G. E. Charlton v. Thomas Lunam, claim, L 3 14s lOd, on a judgment summons—defendant ordered to pay half the amount by the 20th inst. and the other i half by May 18, in default seven days' imprisonment. George M'Guire v. Frank W. Petro.— Claim, LIOO, wages alleged to bo due by defendant to plaintiff as draughtsman. Sir R. Stout appeared for plaintiff; Mr Fraser for defendant.—Plaintiff stated that he was a draughtsmen, and had done work for several architects in town. On July 10, 1885, ho went into defendant's employ, having been engaged by him. Defendant said ho would give him L 0 or L 7 for a month, and, if he was found to suit, would engage him for a year at a salary of LOO. After tho month defendant engaged him by the year at L6O per annum, and witness worked for him till March 16, 1877. Whenever witness asked defendant for money ho used to say that he was very poor, but would pay him "at tho New Year." Witness worked for him for twenty or twenty-ono months, on and off—that was to say, ha worked in the office when there was any work, and when there was none ho used to go up two or three times a week to see if there was anything for him to do. Witness had never paid him anything, and had never discharged hira from his employment. If witness had been discharged, he could have got a situation with Mr Boldiui. He was now with Mr Hislop, earning a salary of L2 10s per week. To Mr Fraser: Witness was previously with Messrs Hislop and Terry, and had not finished up his indentures with them—there was a year to run. He did not reckon that he was finishing up that term while he was with defendant. He reckoned that he was now a finished draughtsman. When with Hislop and Terry he got a salary—L2o for the first year, L3O for the second, L4O for tho third. He was there four years. Housed to go up to defendant onco or twice a week to see if there was work, and sometimes defondant brought work to him at his house. When there was no work ho used to do practice ■ work at home. He did not think that he was absent from the offico for 272 days out of tho twenty months. He asked defendant for money after he had been with him a quarter. He had spoken to a clerk in tho offico about not getting his money ; it was to Cameron, an apprentice, who told him that ho had a poor show of getting it. Cronin was not the head of the offioe—ho was tho office boy. It would be untrue to say that defendant took him out of pity, at \ his mother's request, in order that ho might nomplctc his indentures, that were unfinished with Hislop and Terry.—Plaintiff's mother deposed she had conversations with defendant about her son's engagement. His salary was to be LCO per annum. Witness used after to go up to defendant's place and ask him for money on account of her son's salary, and he used to reply that he would give her LlO or L2O us soon as he could, but that times were very bad. At last he refused to give her even LI. To Mr Fraser: Witness never saw defendant previous to tho engagement and begged him to take her son into his office, although he had no vacancy for him. Witness never knew of the engagement until her son told her of it.—Harry M'Guire, brother of plaintiff, said that ho was present when defendant called on tho first occasion. Defendant said he wished to see plaintiff, and asked witness if plaintiff was doing anything. Witness called his brother, and was present while defendant engaged him. Defendant said he would give plaintiff LG or L 7 for a month, and if he suited ho was to be kept on.—Defendant stated that plaintiff's mother in the first place called on him, and asked him to take plaintiff into his office without salary, as he had been left in the lurch by Mr Terry, who had left suddenly for Melbourne, and it was a pity that plaintiff should leave the last year of his indentures unfinished. Witness said ho had very little work doing in his offico, but that ho would give him a chance. Witness then went to seo plaintiff, whom he had never seen before, and said he would give him a trial for a month, and if he sent him away at the end of tho month he would give him something. Witness did not think it likely that he said ho would give him LG or L 7. Ho did not say anything about paying him a salary after tho first month, but said that if times gotgood and he had a vacancy he would take him on at a small salary. Nothing was said at the end of tho month. Witness considered plaintiff was then entitled to work on for a twelvemonth, at tho end of which time witness would have given him a certificate that he had completed his indentures. His capacity at that time would make him worth L4O per annum at tho moat. Plaintiff never onco asked witness for money, but his mother did. Witness once gave him L2, but that was outside office work. To Sir R. Stout: Witness had at times promised j plaintiffs mother to give him L2O, but that was simply out of friendliness and not becauso ho considered anything was duo to plaintiff. He imagined that plaintiff and his mother understood that nothing was duo to him. He recollected plaintiff once calling at his house at the Cliffs, but did not remember that within an hour ho (witness) went to plaintiff's place and in tho presence of him, his mother, and his sister promised to pay him some money. Yes—ho thought there was such an interview, and that witness said he would have paid the money before but for there being so little doing; but he was not referring then to salary.— Stephen Cronin stated that ho was employed in defendant's office, and that ho kept the time-book and entered in the diary the days on which the various employes were present and what work was done. Witnoss produced the books in question, and showed the various entries referring to plaintiff's time and work at the office, and his absence therefrom. In cross-examina-tion Sir R. Stout elicited that in several instances in which Cronin had in his statement given plaintiff as "absent" the entries in the diary were that plaintiff was at the office, but that there was nothing for him to do. In some places also whole pages of the diary were blank. Witness remembered defendant once complaining that plaintiff had not done some work correctly.—His Worship said that there was no doubt that plaintiff had been engaged by defendant, and was entitled to bo paid for one year. Plaintiff had aworn that the salary was to bo LGO, while defendant swore that nothing was said about salary. Evidently, however, if an apprentice draughtsman had been working steadily in one office for four years ho must be worth a salary of at least LGO, and judgment would be given for that amount, with costs. CITY POLICE COURT. (Bcforo Messrs J. Hazlettand A. Barr, J.P.s.) DucNKKNNEss. —For this offenco Samuel Hill (eight previous convictions) was fined 10s, in default twenty-four hours' imprison ment ; Frederick Boyd (three previous convictions) was lined in a similar amount, with a like alternative ; while a first offender was convicted and discharged. Assault. Robert Wihon was charged with assaulting and beating Ah Quic in Walker street on the 7th inst. There was a further charge against the accused of wilfully damaging a partition in a house in Walker street, to the value of 15s, the property of Ah Quie, on the same date. Mr Solomon appeared for the defendant; I Mr Gallaway for the complainant. ' reference to the charge of assault, the

complainant stated that last night the defendant came into his place and assaulted him. Defendant struck him on the face, knelt upon his chest, and struck him again while he was lying down, Defendant then smashed the partition. Cross-examined : Witness noticed the cuts on defendant's head, collar, neck, and clothes, but did Dot use a knife to defendant. —Ah Lun also gave evidence as to the assault, and said that he (witness) had no' knife upon him at the time of the assault. Cross-examined: None of tho Chinamen struck the defendant in the house,—Joe Lin gave corroborative evidence. —Constable Ruttledge said that when he entered the complainant's house Ah Quie's face was covered with blood. The defendant said on the way to the watchhouse that he had been struck by someone with a knife, Mr Solomon said that tho cuts in the defendant's clothes and hat were done by the Chinamen. The defendant had been inside the house very often, and on this occasion there had been a scuffle.— Robert Wilson, tho defendant, Baid that he had visited the Chinamen's house, at the latter's invitation, on several occasions. There were several Chinamen in the house, but witness could not say which one stabbed him with the knife. Witness only struck at the Chinamen in self-defence. (Witness afterwards admitted that he had only been in the complainant's house on one occasion.) When witness went inside last night several of the Chinamen rushed at him with a poker or an iron bar of some sort. The Chinamen were sitting at a table gambling—at least it looked liko it. It was on account of an information for assault laid against him that witness left Dunedin to go up country. Witness did not leave his house with the intention of molesting the Chinamen in Ah Quie's house.—The .Bench fined defendant 40s, in default seven days' imprisonment; also Is with costs (25s 6d) for the second offence, in default seven days' imprisonment. A Batch of Vagrants.— Frederick Boyd (four previous convictions), Margaret Seque (two previous convictions), James Freeman (two previous convictions), and Jane Paul (nine previous convictions) were charged with having insufficient means of support. —After evidence had been given by Sergeant Mulville in reference to the charge against Boyd, in the course of which the witness stated that the accused was in the habit of turning his mother out of her house and taking prostitutes into tho house, also by Constables Miller and Higgins, tho Bench sentenced accused to two months' imprisonment with hard labor. Mr Macdonald appeared on behalf of the accused Freeman, a colored man.—Sergeant Mulville said that tho accused was a very bad character, and had done no work for five or six months. When witness arrested accused he said that he earned a living collecting bottles. Witness had never seen accused collecting bottles. Constables M'Creagh and Willis also gave corroborative evidence.—Mr Macdonald said that the accused was a sailor, and left his ship in October last. He then had the sum of L 35 in the savings bank, and it would be seen from the accused's bank book (produced) that the last had been drawn out only three weeks since.—The accused said that he had earned 15s, 20s, and sometimes 30s by gathering bottles and selling them to breweries.—The Bench dismissed the case.

Mr Galkway appeared on behalf of the woman Paul. Evidence was given by Sergeant Mulville, Constable M'Creagh, Sergeant-major Bevin, and Constable Crawford, who said that the accused kept company with the man Freeman, and was also a very bad character. —Accused was sentenced to fourteen days' imprisonment. Tho accused Sequo was also sentenced to fourteen days' imprisonment.