Resident Magistrate's Court.

Marlborough Express, Volume III, Issue 114, 25 April 1868, Page 5

Resident Magistrate's Court.

BLENHEIM— Monday, Apeil 20, 1868. [Before S. L. Muller, Esq., R.M.] Henry Oopert was brought up on remand, and, at the instance of Sergeant Emerson, was again remanded till next Monday to permit the attendance of the necessary witnesses. FEEDERICS BUSCH V. JOHN SHEPHEBD. This case was heard the previous Monday, but the decision of the Bench was reserved till to-day. The Bench: It was a question how a horse was bought, in market overt or proved sale. But there was no market overt in this country; a custom was granted to certain fairs and sale yards, and to shops in the city of London—denominated market overt. In case a horse was bought in market overt in England it conferred a title which could only be upset by action against -Iho huyer.—lLnot bought in market overt, though a bona fide purchase, the original owner may seize his animal whereever he can find him, but not by force. At the; same time he had a right to prove his title for the satisfaction-of the person who bought him. In this case there was no

market overt. The purchase of a horse can’t give a title to the buyer; and if Mr. Busch had got hold of the horse, Mr. Shepherd would have had to prove a better title to him before he could have had any remedy. Here Mr. Busch should have had the man taken up and then have sued Shepherd for the horse. It was argued last day that it was a case of felony ; I can’t order restitution of the horse on that ground. There was no clear evidence that Busch had sold the horse to Bill Ambrose; on the other hand it was not clear to his mind that the horse was not sold to Bill. The evidence was very conflicting. He would give a non-suit. Shepherd may have fairly bought the horse, believing it had been honestly acquired by the seller.

Mr. Nelson thought the defendant was not entitled to costs considering his conduct after he had received Busch’s answer. The Bench : He could not blame Shepherd for buying the horse, as the man was staying at his house. Plaintiff non-suited, with £4 18s. costs. W. CLARK AND MARY CLARK V. HUMPHREY O’LEARY AKD GARREXP BARRY. Claim for wages, £23 9s. Mr. Nelson for plaintiff, Mr. Moffitt for defendants. Mr. Mofiitt called Mr. Nelson’s attention to the fact that the sum had been paid into Court, which the defendant hud been always ready to pay. Mr. Nelson objected to recognise any payment into Court without due and written notice. Mr. Motfit argued that no notice was required ; a set-off required notice. The Clerk of Court showed clause 9 of the Act, which specified notice as being required, evidently implying written notice. The Bench held that not merely as a formal matter but for its utility written notice of payment into Court was essential, that in many cases the attendance of witnesses might be countermanded by a plaintiff.

Mary Clark deposed that when she was in Mr. James’s service Mr. O’Leary had sent for her and engaged her as housemaid. She told him she would not go for less than 15s. a-week. He said all right; you shall have it. Before she went on the service she met Mr. Barry, and she told him she had engaged with O’Leary at 15s. per week. He said he was satisfied. She went on the following Monday, and remained till the 10th of March last. When she wanted to be paid up, Barry said that O’Leary had informed him she was engaged for 12s. a-week. She was getting £1 aweek now as housemaid at Mr. Ounn’s. .She told Barry and O’Leary she was leaving James’s for more wages. She had only 12s. from Mr. James. She had her child with her at Mr. James’s, andthe same at Mr. Barry’s. She told them her child would be with her, and they said they did not mind.

15y Mr. Moffitt: She had no preference to be there than at James’s, where she was quite comfortable. She had as much ot her own way, and they were very good and kind to her. She gave Mr. James only a week’s notice ; she did not tell him any reason, only she was going to Carry’s. During the time I was at Barry’s I never received any single week’s wages, but sometimes £5, £2, or £l, as she wanted it.

John Fitzgerald He was brother-in-law bTMrs. CIuTkT Tn~ February 1866 he saw O’Leary, who said he wanted a housemaid, and would like to have Mrs. Clark. He (witness) asked her if she would come, and she said yes. He and his wife and Mrs. Clarke came to O’Leary. O’Leary asked him what she was getting. He said the other girl was getting 15s. or 165., but but Mrs. Clark got only l*2s. he supposed on account of the child. O’Leary said, It would be a poor hungry' table that would miss for that child. Mrs. Clark said, you’ll give me 15s. a-week. All right, said O’Leary, we.* won’t ditfer about Bs. or 4s. She said she could not come till she gave Mrs. James a week’s notice. Ba-ry and O’Leary were just opening their hotel. By Mr. Moffitt: She did not ask to get the same wages as she was getting at James’s ; it was he that spoke about wages. He believed if she asked £1 at the time she would have got it. From that day till the time she left he always understood she was getting £lss. a-week. Mrs. Clarke recalled : tslie remained from the 26th February, 1866 to the lUth March, 1868; £23 9s. was the balance due. Before she went to Barry’s she had a second conversation with O’Leary that the wages should be 15s, a-week.

- Garrett Barry: He remembered Mrs. Clark telling him before she came she had engaged with O’Leary for los, a-week, and she asked if ho was satisfied. He said he was. The week before she left he understood from O’Leary it was only 12s. she had to get. He never heard from O’Leary

before she wanted her account made out, what she had to get. By Mr. Moffit: He was satisfied upon the understanding O’Leary had engaged her for 15s. a-week.

Humphrey O’Leary deposed that Mrs. Clark, prior to engagement, said she was getting 12s. a*week from Mr. James, and she expected the same from him. He said, all right, Mrs, Clark, I’ll give you the same. Fitzgerald said on the Sunday pre* vious there was a difference of wages between the girls, and he believed it was about the little girl. He said it would be very little difference for what the child would eat. He never Said anything about the wages she was to have. Mrs. Clark never mentioned 15s. a-Week. She never mentioned wages to him till a-week before she left, when she called him up in the morning, when she said Barry had told her she was only to get 12s. a-week, When she was engaged for 15s. The account was first made out by Barry at 155., and having seen it he (witness) objected, as he never agreed for 15s. a-week. George James, hotelkeepea: About two years ago Mrs. Clarke left his service. She said she was going to live with a relative. He said he was very sorry as she had only been but a short time. She never asked for an increase of Wages, and assigned no reason for leaving. She was getting 12s. a-week. Ho might have had another servant at an increase, but he could not remember. The Court gave judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed, £23 95., with £•3 6s. Cd. costs. W.M. SYMS V. JULIUS DECIUUS TEIPE. Defendant did not appear. Plaintiff stated he did receive a telegram that morning that the amount had been sent. The Clerk of Court not having received it, the case was heard. Wm. Syms deposed that he was an apothecary. The claim was £l 4s. fid. for drugs supplied. He had asked for the account repeatedly, and it had not been paid. Judgment for plaintiff with I Is. costs. FREDERICK ADAMS V. GEGEGE LYONS. The claim was £3 13s. 9d. for meat supplied. Defendant admitted the debt, but was unable to pay at the present time. Judgment for plaintiff for debt and costs, payment to be made at the rate of £2 a month. The first month’s instalment to bo paid on 4th May next.

This concluded the business of the Court.