RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT REEFTON.

Inangahua Times, Volume III, Issue 84, 2 March 1877, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT REEFTON.

Wednesday Mabch, Ist, 1877. [Before Edwabd Shaw, Esq., B.M.] B CIVIL CASES. Cregan v. Quigley.-A claim for £23 • 15s for work and labor done. A set-ofl - for £6 10s was put in and admitted. 3 Mr Staite appeared appeared for the 8 plaintiff, and Mr Pitt for defendant. r The following evidence was taken :— 1 William Cregan : I know the defend--1 ant. I have sued him for 26 days labor, 1 at 10s per day. I did the work for him b at his request. I was with him off and ' on. Some days I did not work. I cannot ' say how many, but I can swear to workins for 26 days. I did a fortnight's ! rafting, and charged 10s a day for it. The rafting was done a week after the *' other work. I charged £6 for the raft* ing. I raffled a horse at Quigley's, and 1 defendant told me he would be responsible * for the amount, £4 15s. On the 12th | February I received an account from Mr ' Quigley. It shows an amount due by me ! to him of £4 2s 6d. When I was leaving 1 Tasked for my fall account. I should ; have received £7 for the raffle of the \ horse. Altogether I only claim £4 15s, ' because he had £2 15s in the raffie. : Crpss-examined-Had no agreement with defendant as- to the board. He gave, me the time »s twenty-six days. We were rafting timber down the river for the construction of the Oiki bridge. I was to get £3 per week and board for the rafting. John Quigley— l know defendant. He was in my employ. I intended to allow him 25s per week and board, but he was not satisfied with that, and it was agreed that he should receive 10s per day for every day he worked, and should pay for his own board. When the rafting was nearly finished a flood came on and carried the raft down to Westport. I went down to Westport, and all the tijie I was away plaintiff did nothing, and has charged for the time as though he had been working. He left my place the day before I returned. I was about eight days absent. All I received on account of the raffle was 255, paid to me by a man named Gibson. I did not promise to become responsible for the names on the raffle paper. I had a chance in the raffle, and paid for it in cash. Plaintiff, is a&out £2 in my debt. Counsel having addressed the Court, His Worship said that it certainly did appear strange that a man after working for some time should leave in debt to his employer. The evidence was contradictory, and the accounts were almost income prehensible. He had no hesitation, however, in giving a judgment for the plaintiff for £4 4s and costs, and professional fee. The Court .then adjourned.