THE COURTS—TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 10402, 25 August 1897, Page 2

THE COURTS—TO-DAY.

MAWSTBATE'S COURT. (Before E. H. Carew, Esq., S.M.) Joseph Sparrow v. Corrigan and Co.— Claim, £3 6s, for work done, and counter claim in which defendants claimed £SO, damages for breach of contract. The Hon. John MacGregor appeared for plaintiff and Mr Sim for defendant.—ln this previouslyheard ease His Worship gave judgment as follow 8:

The dispute in this case is upon the counter olaim. There was first a contract to fix two dynamos in position. Plaintiff aont a man to carry on the work, but nothing was ready for him to go on with and he was put to work outBide of the contract. Mr Sparrow was dissatisfied, and the man was withdrawn, and subsequently a new arrangement was come to that Mr Sparrow was to give the services of Mr Fiddis, then in his employ, at so much per hour. Mr Sparrow Bwore that he told Mr Corrigan he could put Mr Fiddis at any work he liked. Mr Corrigan does not agree that was said, but he admits he agreed to pay a fixed price per hour for Mr Fiddis's services. The original contract was thus superseded by what appears to me to be a loose arrrangement to work by the" hour, without any definite understanding how long it was to continue. If Mr Sparrows evidence is correot, and there is nothing improbable about it, that he told Mr Corrigan if he paid the rate per.hour he asked for Mr Fiddis's services he could put him at any work he liked, tbd question of what work he was to be employed at was also an open oue. That view is supported by Mr Fiddis's evidence that he was engaged for some time on Monday on the roofs of three or four houses assisting Mr "Wall. My uewof the case is that an agreement suohas this one was, to work by the hour without any stipulation how long the employment is to continue, may be terminated by either party at any time, and that it would be unreasonable to insist that a man should work during a public holiday in the absence of an express undertaking that he would do so. As to the fault in connection with the pulley on [No. 2 dynamo, the defendant and Mr Fiddis contradict each other. I am not able to say which is right, but according to Mr Stevenson the principal fault was that the wire to carry the current was too fine, which Mr Sparrow had nothing to do with. Mr Corrigan ha 3 been unfortunate through not making an earlier start in fixing his plant, but I fail to see that plaintiff can be held liable. Judgment for plaintiff in the claim for £3 6s, with costs (41s); and also for plaintiff (Sparrow) in the counter-claim, with costs (£4 4s).

Judgment wbb given for plaintiffs by default in the following cases :—J. Allan (for whom Mr Moore appeared) v. W. G. Miller (of Waitati), claim £6 10s (costs 255); Smith and Smith v. George Abrahams (of Waipawa), claim £7 S3 2d, on a dishonored promissory note (costs Ss); T. Sneddon (for whom Mr Moore appeared) v. James Gray (of Invercargill), claim £l2 16s, for goods supplied (costs £1 183 6d); David Baxter v. William Hendrickson (of Naseby), claim £5 33 6d, on a dishonored promissory note (costs 8s); P. Hayman and Co. (for whom Mr J. A. D. Adams appeared) v. Nathan Peacock (of Ophir), claim £5 13s 4d, for goods supplied (costs £1 5s GJ).

D. D. Macdonald v. Benjamin Monk.— Claim, £22 03 3d, for professional services rendered. The Hon. John MacGregor appeared for plaintiff and Mr Thornton for defendant.—After evidence His Worship gave judgment for £l3 9* 9d, a portion of the claim being foregone by plaintiff under pica of the Statute of Limitations entered by defendant.

CITY POLICE C9UBT.

(Before Mr I. Selby, J.P.)

Dkunkenness.— Annie Pilet and Emma Ellis alias Parnell were each fined 5s or twenty-four hours' imprisonment. A first offender was convicted and discharged. The Probation Acs.—Edward Thomas, a youth, pleaded guilty to failing to provide with the terms of his probation license.— Probation-officer Phillips stated that the lad was placed on probation on the 10th of the present month, but he failed to carry out the conditions of his license. He wandered about the streets, and was absent from his home at night. A warrant was issued for his arrest, and he wa3 brought before the Court last week, being remanded for a week in order to see what could be done for him. A good situation had now been procured for him, and it was intended to send him away to-morrow morning. He (Mr Phillips) therefore asked that the lad bo released from his remand to-morrow, and that his term of probation be extended to one month from date. —Granted accordingly.