Resident magistrate's Court.

Marlborough Express, Volume IV, Issue 184, 17 July 1869, Page 5

Resident magistrate's Court.

MONDAY, JULY 12tii.

[Before S. L. Muller, Esq., E.M., and E. J. HonaoK, Esq., J.P.] LEWIS t’. LAW. This was an action to recover Bs. 6d. for conveying a keg of beer, and sundry boxes of batter, for defendant, and was adjourned at a former hearing to this day. Mr. Nelson appeared for defendant. Lewis Lewis being re-examined, deposed that he did not know where he took the keg from, but always ascertained at the time of receiving, who was to pay for goods. Dodson would not pay for small quantities below 28 gallons. Was still under the impression that he took the beer from Dodson and Ball’s, and the butter to Marks, although it might have been Beauchamp. Plaintiff paid him 5s in 1866, and he had sent him forty bills in since; had sent them every quarter. Joseph Law deposed that he did not get any beer from Dodson’s in January 1867, or near that date, but got what he wanted from Williams. He never had to pay for carriage, nor had he been asked. The book produced was his butter-book, and from that he found that he did not send any on Oct, 17, or in November. He never sold any to Marks at all, and never had but one account before the summons. John Craing had been with Dodson and Ball as storeman for the last four years. The nearest transaction with defendant was in July, 1867, which was delivered to Law himself in their yard. The firm were always willing to pay for the delivery of five gallons or over. Mr. Nelson addressed the Court, urging that defendant was not indebted. The Bench found for the plaintiff, with 225. costs. MOHAN V. 13KINDLE. Mr. Nelson appeared for defendant, and said £5 Bs. 4d. had been paid into Court in lieu of a month’s wages. Mr. Pitt, for the plaintiff, said this was a claim for £32 10s. for six months’ wages, arising out of a hiring for 12 months at £65 ; not so much per week, but so much for the year. In case of wrongful dismissal, the servant had a claim for the balance of the term. In May last defendant discharged Moran, who was willing to perform his share of the contract. Denis Moran proved that he entered the service of defendant last December; the agreement was for £65 a year for twelve months, and he served till May 20, when defendant came to him and said he could not afford to pay for more than 6 months. He worked a week after that, and then was told to go. He was willing and able to serve for the remainder of the term, and now claimed 6 months’ wages, having been paid until June. By Mr. Nelson ; Was working for Brindle previous to the hiring for some time. In March, 1868, bought some land, and remained to work it out at 30s. weekly, with keep. After that went to Nelson, but was engaged at his place on the Saturday previous to December 6th. He did not wish to hire him by the week. Was working a month previously at 255., and offered to stay at £65 a year. Wanted to engage by the year. Besides that he was to pay extra for the harvest months, which he made the same to me as a stranger. My duties were as a regular farm servant—looking after the horses and ploughing. He kept a saddle horse for me, and I left every Saturday night, and returned on Monday mornings. He looked after the horses while I was away; and paid my wages from time to time. He was a very good master, and paid as we went along. I might have swom an oath by my Maker that, if he did not pay the six months, I would sell hirh tip. Was absent once for a few days, had his permission.

John Fitzgerald, farmer, proved that he knew both parties. The defendant told him he had engaged Moran for 12 months, but was sorry he should have to part with him, as his crops did not pay. £65 was good wages. Mr. Nelson addressed the Court for the defendant, and quoted several authorities. He then called Charles Brindle, who deposed that he engaged plaintiff in December last by the year at the rate of £65 a year', with harvest money added. That was the bare agreement, and nothing was said about notice. He always paid as he went long. Sold his wheat for £45, but defendant’s wages took £42 of it, and when he found that he had nothing left for himself he determined to do without him. A month’s notice or wages was always considered sufficient. He off red him that at the time, or to give him 3 months’ work in winter, and pay when shearing time came. The Bench said nothing but misconduct would warrant defendant in discharging him Everyone must feel for defendant’s losses, which he knew had been very great, but they could not interfere with the law. This was plainly a contract for a year, and not a yearly hiring, which would require three months’ notice. Judgment would be for the amount claimed, with £4 Is. costs. Mr. Nelson gave notice of appeal. PICTON V. EMERSON. . This was an adjourned case, wherein the / plaintiff, as mortgagor, sought to recover from the bailiff certain money paid to him as rent by the tenant, which was also claimed by Mancks, as mortgagee. Mr. Pitt appeared for Picton, and Mr. Nelson for Mancks. The Bench declined to go on with the ca if there was a question of right to propert He could only go into a question of adjustment of accounts. It was then agreed that this course should be adopted, when Mr. Nelson proved that the property was mortgaged for £235 ; interest had accumulated to £29 Os. 9d’, and the Registrar’s and Auction expenses were £l2 Is., besides which was the solicitors’ bill to be added, which would legally exceed the amount raised by the sale, and thus the money would be due to Mancks. Ultimately the case stood over to allow the solicitors’ account to be taxed. This was afterwards done, when it was found that there would still be a large balance due to Mancks after receiving the money in question; therefore judgment was given in his favor. r LICENSES. I Mr. Muirhead applied for a license for j the Plough Inn, Renwicktown-road ; and I Mr. G. Barry, for the Marlborough Hotel, I Blenheim, both of which were granted, f Mr. J. Masters applied for a license for the Alabama Hotel, but withdrew the application for a few days to see the result of the new Amendment Act, Holloway s Pills.— Nervous Debility. — No part of the human machine requires more watching then the nervous system ; upon it hangs health, and life itself. These Pills are the best regulators and strengthened of the nerves and the safest general purifiers; nausea, headache, giddiness, numbness, and mental apathy yield to them they despatch in a summary manner those distressing dyspeptic symptoms, stomachic pains, fullness at the pit of the stomach, abdominal distention, and overcome loathings, capricious appetite, and confined bowels, the commonly accompanying signs of defective or deranged nervous power, Holloway’s Pills are particularly recommended to persons of studious and sedentary habits, who gradually sink into a nervous and debilitated state, unless some restorative, such as his Pill, be occasionally taken.