RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXIII, Issue 1364, 23 February 1865, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

CHRISTCHURCH.—Tuesday, Feb. 21. (Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., R.M.)

The following debt cases were disposed of:— Chudleigh v. O'Brien, debt, £7 16s, judgment for plaintiff for £3 10s and costs; Fuller v. La'Mert, debt, £2, judgment for defendant with costs; M'Mahon v. Gillon, debt, £15 5s 9d, judgment for defendant and costs; Main v. Moss, debt, £1 10®» judgment for defendan twith costs. Judgments for plaintiffs for full amounts and costs were given in the following cases:-—Jones and Co. v. M'Bratney, debt, £9 Is 3d; Small wood v. Burrell, debt, £5 10s; Graham v. Murphy, debt, £10; Styche r. Smith, debt, £3 ss; Mansell v. M'Cosker, debt, £9 10s; Herons v. M'Donald, debt, £9 7s; Ward and Reeves, v. Birdsey, debt, £16 14s 2d; Aikman, Knight and Co. y. Griffin, debt, £2 Bs.

Wednesday, Feb. 22. (Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., R.M.)

The following debt cases were disposed of :—Dix v. G. Adams, debt, £42 9s 6d; judgment for plaintiff for £15 lis 3d, and costs. In the following cases judgment was given for the plaintiffs, for the full amount claimed, with costs:—Jameson v. Attack, £96 8s 5d ; Stringer and Co. v. Wakefield, debt, £62 lis 9d; Woodman v. Smith, debt, £25; Hart v. Oakes, debt, £46 18s; Aikman, Knight and Co. v. Flowers, debt, £22; Vickery v. Brake, debt, £29 6s 3d; Nicholson and Lodge v. Birdsey, debt, £79 12s 2d.

LYTTELTON.—Toesday, FEB. 21, 1865, (Before W. Donald, Esq., R.M.)

Breach op Harbour Regulations. — James Allan, a respectable young man, in tjie service of Mr. Stoddart, Diamond Harbour, was charged by Captain Gibson, Port-officer, with the above offence. The following particulars appeared in evidence:—On the afternoon of the 16th February, Captain Gibson found a boat made fast to the rails on the landing stairs at the Government jetty, contrary to the Harbour Regulations. On making enquiries it was found to be in charge of James Allan. The Portofficer said he had brought this subject before the bench on public grounds; he did not wish to . press for a heavy penalty. The defendant said he was not aware of the existence of the regulations. Anothei charge was made for obstructing the landing of Government officials, but was withdrawn, and tjhe bench told defendant, under the circumstances, they would require him to pay the costs of the Court in the first case. •

Horse Wandering at Large.—Mrs. Wheeler was fined 10s and costs for allowing a horse belonging to her to wander at large in the town. The evidence was given by James Davidson, constable of the armed police.

Gell v. Hargreaves.—Claim for balance of wages, &c:, £16 3s Bd. A set-off was pleaded against the above claim amounting to £9 6s. At the request of Mr. Hargreaves. the Court agreed to hear both cases before giving a decision. Mr. Gell,.on being sworn, said his claim was for 12 days' pay at 25s per day, horse hire, and other expenses. He produced an agreement, duly signed, to act as clerk of works at 25s per day, to superintend the building of Mr. Hargreaves store in Norwich quay. About two months' ago he had to go to Wellington, and, on returning, resumed his duties, and was. paid for one fortnight, according to the terms of the agreement ; but on making application for his money the following fortnight it was refused, on the ground that he was not in Mr. Hargreaves' employ. He bad never been properly discharged. When he took the job he was to be employed till it was finished. A few days after arrival he arranged with Mr. Hargreaves to act as architect as well as clerk of the works. Mr. Gell was examined by Mr. Hargreaves : Admitted he was at Wellington for one month; that his sou acted for him during his absence ; he had his wages increased from 12s per day to 15s by his (Mr. Gell's) orders; on his return had taken the charge of the building, and signed tradesmen's accounts, given orders about the work, ftnd signed the pay-sheets. Mr. Hargreaves was' then sworn : He said be would admit the agreement. Gell engaged at Wellington with him to come down to take charge of the building providing they could agree about terms ; if they could not agree, Gell was to have his passage paid going and, returning. He advanced him £10. When he left for Wellington, he left the building in charge of his son. During all the time he was acting as clerk of the works he considered he was his servant, but he was frequently absent on his own private business. He never recognised him as an architect, for the plans and working drawings were all prepared for him, and he was engaged as clerk of the works. He never expected, on his return from Wellington, that he would come on again at 25s per day. He became aware of it first by Mr. Gell asking him to sign v an affidavit to be forwarded to the Supreme Court at Wellington, stating that Mr. Gell was still in his employ; this he objected to do, and Mr. Priest, solicitor, struck it out; if he had signed this document, Mr. Gell could have come upon him and claimed the whole of the wages for the month he was absent at Wellington. On seeing his brother, he found he had been paid a fortnight's wages. He told his brother that he was not in his employ, and he was not to receive any more money. At the end of the following fortnight Mr. Gell applied for his salary, and it was refused. He then told his brother that he would have a survey on the building and get it condemned, for it was rotten from the foundation. This threat was said evidently to do him injury, and therefore he decided to have the subject investigated before this Court. He did not consider that Mr. Gell was in his service after

his return from Wellington; although he had received a fortnight's pay, it was paid in error. He wished to call witnesses. Cfoss-examined by Mr. Gell—Yon have admitted saying that I was to be quick back from Wellington. What was your object in saying so if I was not in your employ? Witnes said he had no answer to give. Mr. W. H. Hargreaves was called to give evidence. He paid Mr. Gell for the first fortnight after his return from Wellington; was only aware Mr. Gell was not employed after this was paid; received intimation from his brother that he was discharged. On applying for wages the following fortnight, told Gell he had been paid in error, and declined to pay him any more. Gell said he was still in the employ—he had never had his discharge; he got excited, and said he would have a survey on the building and get it con - demned, it was a rotten job from the foundation. Mr. Beaumont was present at the time he made this statement. Mr. Beaumont was called and corroborated this evidence. Judgment deferred for a week.

Stockham v. Bell.—Claim of £12 159 for balance of wages. Plaintiff stated he had been engaged by a person named M'Ara to do work for the firm of M'Ara and Bell, on Lake Ellesmere. Defendant pleaded that he was not liable ; he was not a partner with M'Ara, but in his employ. Judgment for defendant, with costs.

Walter Henderson v. Bell.—Claim for £11, for wages. This was a similar case to the last. The Resident Magistrate said it was a very hard case for the plaintiff. He should give judgment for defandant, leaving it open to prove, if possible, that Bell was a partner ; if they could do so, he would re-hear the case.

Renshaw v. Pearson.—-Claim for £37 Bs, for goods supplied to defendant's order. Judgment for full amount and costs.

Smith v. Galbraith. — Claim for £7 for one month's wages, as seaman on board the Bchooner Nymph of the Seas. Adjourned for one week.

G. Smith v, Bennett,—Claim for £2, rent for use Of a boat. .Judgment for defendant; plaintiff had summoned the wrong party.

Dalgetyand Co. v. Cai>t. Feuqusson.—Claim for value of part of hogshead of ale, short landed. Plaintiffs tried to prove that the cask had been spued on board the Eastern Empire. Verdict for defendant. The Bench informed Mr. Wright, who appeared for plaintiffs' case, he was perfectly justified in bringing tho matter before the Court for investigation.