Untitled

Lyttelton Times, Volume XI, Issue 660, 5 March 1859, Page 3

" \'M>{ £10. Evans continued to serve under this ji&wreement until 6th of September, 1859. On the jfpOth August, complainant started with Evans and Mothers, for the South, and Evans continued with Ilthem as far as, the Arbweriua. , "When, at for. jflfßhbdes' station, complainant heard of Evans's in||j|tention to leave and addressed a note to him, a copy |§|bf which he now produced. He afterwards met the ■I pray at the Point' Station and found Evans had H Igone. It was the day before yesterday that com- ■ fblamant first heard that Evaus was in Chiistohurch. iifthe terms of agreement were understood to be the E^patne as the' former agreement defendant entered IraSnto, which;\vas that of shepherd. ||||| Cross-examined by defendant—You did not preHwionsly refuse to do your duty.. Before you signed H||he agreement, I told you Mr. >Vest was to own Sftart of the sheep and to have charge of the station. . ISbefendant's statement was to the effect that he i Jpi'as to have charge of the station, and that neither s«|Mr. West nor any one else was to have anything '|isiko do with him. On. the,journey to Timaru, Mr. litest and Mr. Guinness interfered with defendant; 'j}skc refused to obey their orders as he considered. he was bbuftd to look to Mr. Burke alone his master, ;arid acting upon this he took his /jjihings off the dray and left them at Dean's at the Jl^arowenua. '<'■'■'■> . . |^The Court considered that although complainant defendant differed as to the precise nature of .•f'laeir agreement, the implication of the written fiigreement produced in Court was that defendant engaged his services in the capacity of shep- , herd —and in that capacity he was bound to obey ,iVIHr. Burke and any other whom Mr. Burke might '"•Wfc over him; the'refore,,defendant was not justified 1 )& leaving Mr. Burke as he did on .this excuse.. The <■' l^Oontt were willing to believe that defendant had .pcted in the heat of the moment and without con- > at all to what punishment lie.was liable, k ftwhich was no less than imprisonment as the case ;'!^'*fc present stood; they had good grounds for this '^fUsumption,. from the previous, good character , defendant had borne; - They would suggest "^sfio the prosecutor that he shbuld; withdraw the pvef'^lient charge and proceed civilly for damages against if'i^livans. . .. . . . \w{> The prosecutor here stated his unwillingness to 1 pj^ithdraw the charge; lie said that it was a matpc affecting public interest, and that in the generJ|riity of cases of a similar nature it would be imposJlfible to proceed civilly. ' ' tThe Court then proceeded to observe that, such ing the case, there were two courses open—either abate the amount of defendant's wages, or to inct the punishment of imprisonment. Therefore ?|F defendant were willing to refund to Mr. Burke ?»Il wages and monies advanced to. him, the court !s»ould inflict only that punishment upon him, though had clearly rendered himself liable under ithe English Act, by his breach of contract, to A term of imprisonment. Defendant was therefore to forfeit all wages earned since the cornel mencement of the agreement, together with v*Js. 6d. costs. f- Wednesday, Maech 2. ■M (Before Jos. Bbittan, Esq., J.P.) i*V J. M. O'Neill was fined 58. for having a horse Spethered in the public streets, also Thomas Wilson, ®|IO3," for a: second offence of this sort.