RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT.

Inangahua Times, Volume IV, Issue 76, 3 October 1877, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT.

Tuesday, Octobgb 2, 1877. • [Before Edward Shaw, Esq., E.M.] TOUNG V. BRANDT. On this en.'ia'brM?, called M> Staite •• - « v ,^ dm! (lie

Mr Pitt for defendant consented. I Tho case was accordingly struck out. i CBUELTY TO ANIMALS. ] David Williams was charged upon the ; information of John Temperley with : cruelly illtreafcing a horse at Eeofton on | the 28th September. . ( Defendant admitted the offence. i Tlift following evidence was taken :— John Temperley— On Friday 28th ultimo at 3 o'clock in the afternoon defendant was going doirii Sinith^stroci on a bay horse. Ho was beating the horso over tho head with a stick. I cautioned him not to illtreat the horse and afterwards I went up to him and told him to get- off, Jlcr persisted, however, in beating the horse until ho got to M'Gnigan's stable. It was a broom handle ho was using, and ho was beating flie animal over the head. The horso was not a violent ono, but au old pack horse. Defendant held the bridle so tight that tho horse could not go ahead, and went' backwards. I know thd idefeodant, he is a farmer living in tho jlnangahua. Ho was not sober at tbo time, but bo was not very drunk or I should havo locked him up. Tho horse bolonged to Bernard M'Neill of Fern Fhit. Mr Pitt was present at the time of the illtreatmout, as also John Ovcrhond Have known cloPendanfc for a long time, and was very much surprised to soe him act as ho did, as he is in general a very well behavod man. His Worship said tho circumstance ad« ducedshowedthataconsiderableamount of 1 illtreafcment had boan showered upon tho unfortunate animal, and had it not boea for his good character should have been inclined to deal wiLh thecaseraoro severely. Drunkonness was no palliatiou for such an offence. The, offence was a grave ono, and tho fino would be £G and costs. : CERESETO V. DEVERY. 1 £3 10a balauco of wa^ca duo. 1 Victor Ceroseto— l was iu the employ of Cunuiusham aud Dovery at 253 per week. The partnership was dissolved and I remained with Devery fourteen weeks. Devory did not tell mo anything about wages. Ho said nothing about a roduc- .. tion, and at tho settlement I claimed tho full amount 25s' a wock, and ho declined to pay more than 20s per week. Cross-examinod— Dovery left a cheque for £14 for me, and I then gave him a bill for tbo balance There was nothing said about 23s por week during the Christmas week. I was told by Cunningham to cotno on at 25:3 pot 1 week, without any reference to Christmas. Tho book produced bears my signature. It is a '• receipt for wages. I signed book when Gibson gnvo mo the cheque for £14, which' was on the 14th April. Tho word ? settled- '''in' thd book is not in my luuidwritinu. I think Ci'bson kept the books and managed the business. I continued on with Gothard' without any fresh ar« jrangemen^at 20i. Tho work wai not so heavy with Gothiml. I did not tulro much uotico of the book at the l.imD I signed. I did not look at wlint I was signing. I knew by the amount of the cheque Unit ho hail not pail mo at 25s per week. I signed tbe book first, aud got the choquo after. By the Bonch— «l havo waited some timo as Dovery has been away. Cunningham scttlod with me whon he left tho busiuess. He paid mo at the rnte of' 25s por week. Nothing was said to mo by Devory J about a reduction iu tho wages. lam 17 years of age. Angelo Cerescto— l am father of the last witness. My son was employod by Cuningham and Dovery at 25s a wock. Recollect receiving a cheque from him. He was 14 weeks in Dovory'a employ. The cheque was at tho rate of 203 .per week. .Dovery never said anything to me about a reduction of wages. I made a- claim agaiust Dovery for tho amount now sued for before I had a misunder* standing with Devery. While Devery had the business the boj had inoro work to do. • > Cross-examined— lt was about a wook after tho boy left Devery that I sent him a bill for tho balanco of tho wages. Oornelius Gothard— l bought Devery 's business. At that time V. Cerescto was in the service. We askod Devory what rate of wages Cereseto was receiving. Coreseto remained in our employ for five weeks. At tho termination of his service I paid him at the rate 'of 20s per week, and ho made no objection to tho rate. Cross-examined— l had the same number of meu employed as Devery. When j Cuninghara was in tho firm thero wero more hands in the shop. Had no con* versation with Csreseto about wages. Heard from Gibson that Ceresoto claimed 25s per week from Divery. By tho J3coch — I was satisfied to pay bolhGibsun and Cereseto tho same rate of wages. I am not sure whether it was while Coreseto was in my employ or after j ho left thnt I heard of the claim of 25a a. week ; 20s a week is tho regular pay for boys. Never heard of a custom in goldfields districts to pny boys extra wages < during Christmas woek. Men taken on ; during Christmas week demand extra wacres. ' Victor Cereseto recalled— l continued < with Gothard after Devery left. Nothing i was said about wa^os, but I did not ox- j pect so much as the work was no so hard. ' Devery never worked in. tho shop. Gothard did. i His Worship said it must bo accepted that the rate of wages up to CUrislma.* ; Ust wna 25 < por week. Subsequent to i / :,-. • , f.-r-sli arrangement seemed to have

been entered into, and defendant had '■ therefore made himsolf liable for tho sum now sued for. The caso wa9 not exactly free from doubt. Plaintiff had signod a receipt in full for all wages due to him by defendant, and had commenced and oontinuod in his omptoy without arrangement aa to tho rato of wages to be paid. ' Judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed with costs. The Court then adjournod.