MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 2594, 29 April 1869, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CiiH^TCHUUCH. Wednesday, April 28. (Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., 8.M.) Drunkenness. —Thos. Birch, alias John Parker, for being drunk and using obscene language in Cathedral square, yesterday, was fined 10s. Larceny.—'Thomas Arden was brought up in custody, charged with having stolen two pairs of boots from the shop of Mr George Simpson. It appeared that, on the evening of the 26th inst, Alfred Green, one of the prosecutor’s workmen, saw prisoner take a pair of women’s boots, valued at 10s 6d, from the door of the shop. He followed him, and brought him back; but prosecutor, thinking him under the influence of drink, let him go. The following evening, however, prosecutor himself saw prisoner take a pair of men’s boots, worth 20s, and then laid an information with the police. Prisoner was arrested by Constable Wilson at the Borough Hotel, and admitted the offence. He declined to make any statement in defence, and his Worship, remarking upon the fact of prisoner having been once let off by prosecutor, committed him to three months’ imprisonment, at hard labour, for each offence, or six months in all. CIVIL CASES, Robert Thompson v. W. Balmforxh. — In this case plaintiff sought to recover £2B Is $d for work none, in threshing 3098 bushels of grain. £l3 17s 8d was tendered by defendant, for whom Mr Garrick appeared, and a set-off filed for £1 10s, the balance being disputed on the ground of overcharge and inferior cleaning of a portion of the grain. Plaintiff’s case was that he had verbally agreed to thresh the grain at 4fcd per bushel, and called his engine driver to show that every care and attention had been paid to defendant’s suggestions or remarks in doing so. The machine was new and the best of its kind, but a portion of the wheat had a large quantity of oats amongst it, and it was not possible to thoroughly remove them in one dressing. His agreement was for one dressing, and it was never done twice unless by special agreement. He admitted the set-off of £1 10s, but nothing else. For the defence it was stated by Baimforth, and corroborated by his brother, that the agreement was for 4d per bushel, whilst it was also shown that plaintiff had threshed other grain in the vicinity for that amount. It was further advanced that the improper threshing of the grain was the reault of the machine being too rapidly fed, and the screen not being kept clean. In support of this, a neighbouring farmer was called, and stated that plaintiff had threshed a much worse sample of grain for him and turned it out in better order than defendants, in fact, it could not have been better, whilst Mr Brownell, who had purchased the grain, gave an opinion relative to the improper cleaning of the wheat in support of defendant’s statement, and said he had been compelled to have it put through a machine at a cost of about Id per bushel before it was fit for manufacture. In reply to defendant’s statement of overfeeding the machine, plaintiff produced his book, showing that on the average only 440 bushels had been threshed per day, whilst at other places he had regularly done upwards of 1000 bushels per day. He also stated that the grain he had done at 4d per bushel was in remarkably good condition, and lie certainly agreed to work for defendant at the same rate, if bis grain turned out as well, but it did not. His Worship said it was unfortunate that the contract had been so loosely arranged, and disagreement must often ensue in such cases. He was inclined to think that there were, reasonable grounds for defendant believing the contract to be for 4d per bushel; but at the same time, he also thought it was only for one reasonable dressing, and he should not therefore mulct plaintiff in the reduction of the Id per bushel claimed by the defendant. Judgment would be given for £6 ss, and the amount paid into Court. H. Pascoe v. A. Moore & Co. —This was a claim of £47 t r wages as head brewer. Mr W. Williams appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Garrick for the defendants. There had not been a written contract between the parties, and the plaintiff alleged that he was to receive £5 per week ; whilst defendants, who made the agreement through their book-keeper, contended that only £4 per week was to be paid. From the evidence it appeared that plaintiff had previously been in defendants’ employ at £5 per week, and plaintiff alleged that he only agreed to go back again on these terms. The bookkeeper, however, denied making any such agreement, as Mr Moore had limited him to £4 per week, and it was further deposed by a witness that on plaintiff demurring to a cheque for £B, given to him for a fortnight’s service by the book-keeper, the latter told him that was the amount he was to receive, and if he did not like it, he might leave. Plaintiff still worked on, and did not receive any wages for several weeks, but he then got cheques of £5 each at intervals of a week, an 1 sometimes ten days. This, nlaintiff urged, was a proof that he was to receive £5 per week, but on the other hand, it was contended that the sums were merely paid as asked, and on account of current wages, and the sum due to plaintiff for the first few weeks he was not paid. The evidence given was lengthy, and for the defence, Mr Douglas, of the firm of Ward and Co., brewers, proved to £4 per week being the sum paid at that establishment for a head brewer, and to its being a fair salary. His Worship nonsuited plaintiff on the ground that if he were not satisfied with the £4 per week when the cheque was tendered him, he should have left. In the case of li. Aiken v. H. Perrott, £35 ss, plaintiff was nonsuited; and in those of Avon Koad Board v. Graham, as trustee in the estate of W. lie T roy, £9 ss, Rowley v. De Troy, £5 4s 2d, and Kiipsch v. Oswald, £3 Bs—judgment was given for the defendants. Judgment, for full amount and costs was given in the following cases : H. Fletcher’s executors v. J. H. Caton, £43 I9s lOd; Forbes and Price v. Lake, £6O; A. W. Smart v. John Ward, £4O ; Superintendent

v. W. Pengally,"' '£2Si IlDa Reece v. John Smith, £37 16s 6d ; Avon Road Board v. De Troy, £5 ISs 6d t Garrick and Cowlishaw v, Bruce, £7 9s lod ; Hale v. Nolan, £2 8s i Chapman v. Going, 12s; IlifEe v. Kerr, £5 ss. KAIAPOI. Tuesday, April 27. (Before G. L. Mellish, Esq., 8.M.) CIVIL CASES. Hans Fanislowe v. W. L. & N. Fowlbk. —Claim £97 18s. Set-off £IOO. Mr Joynt for defendant N. Fowler. This case occupied the Court a long time, and embodied a large number of charges and counter-charges for sheep-driving and other work on each other’s stations. After taxing both accounts, the Bench gave judgment for 15s 6d, each party to pay their own costs. Fanislowe v. Young and Fowler. —Claim £4B 2s lOd. A set-off was pleaded. Mr Joynt for the defence. The claim wna for goods supplied, and the set-off for grazing. Judgment for £lB 10s lid. Graham v. Bruins.— Claim £25, for value of a mare alleged to have been sold to defendant, Mr Joynt for defendant. C. Oram said he had been offered the mare by the plaintiff at the same time that Bruins was said to have purchased it. He thought there was at that time an understanding between them that Bruins should appear to purchase in order to make him more anxious to come to terms. Witness said that be could have bought the horse from the plaintiff after the alleged bargain had taken place. Defendant denied purchase. Mrs Bruins gave evidence that she refused to take delivery from plaintiff. Judgment recorded for defendant, plaintiff to pay solicitor’s fee. Whittow v. Garlick. —Claim £B. A set-off for £4 2s was filed, but as no copy had been rendered to defendant, it was disallowed. The claim was for ten weeks’ board, and the charge of 163 per week was objected to as exorbitant. The case was adjourned. Rangiora and Mandevxlle Road Board v. Dudding.— Claim, 14s. In this case the defendant had been rated for land he did not possess. He had on a former occasion paid the amount in error. The Bench gave judgment for 1 Is, and expressed an opinion that the amount paid by mistake should be refunded by plaintiffs. Flaxton School Committee v, J. H. Caton.— Claim, £3 13s. Defendant had filled his schedule, and the case was not heard. Belcher and Fairweather v. J. H. Caton.— Claim, £3 13s. Judgment by default. Same v. J. Hursb.—Claim, £7, set off £2, paid into Court £2 9s. Judgment for amount paid into Court; set-off disallowed. O’Conner v. Stonyeh.— Claim for cutting lfe£ tons of flax at 7s per ton. Plaintiff nonsuited—as defendant was liable to another man. Beswick and Hinge v. Coles and Thompkins. —Claim £2l. Defendants, who are proprietors of the Woodend Hotel, refused to allow the removal of certain crops bought by the plaintiff at a sale in A. Ward's estate at Woodend. Plaintiffs bought seven acres more or less, the crops being left till mature, and in the interim defendants refused to allow them to go on the land. Hence the present action. Mr Graham and Mr F. Hepworth were examined respecting terms of sale, when at defendants’ request the case was adjourned till next Court day, owing to defendants’ partner not having had time to receive a summons.