MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Marlborough Express, Volume XLII, Issue 247, 17 October 1908, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

CIVIL SITTING

Edward James v. Thomas Giles, claim for £4 18s. Judgment for plaintiff by default with costs 7s. George Windleburn v. Frank Campbell, judgment summons case. There was no appearance of defendant and an order was made for the payment of the amount (£2 15s) forthwith, in default six days' imprisonment.

MEDICAL FEES

Dr Pentreath proceeded against Arthur Francis Jarman for the sum of £1 15s, for medical attendance in May. The question was whether defendant (for whom Mr Churchward appeared) was liable for the amount fn question. The facts as stated by Dr Pentreath in his evidence were that he (witness) had attended defendant at Renwicktown, for which visit he had charged 30s, and that defendant had consulted him at his (witness's) house shortly afterwards, for which he had charged ss. A man |jnamed Tapp asked witness to go out to Renwick and see defendant. He had received no definite instructions from defendant to act in the case, but when attending defendant he had not made any mention of that fact. Defendant had afterwards come in of his own accord to consult witness.

Arthur Francis Jarman stated that

at the time that he was attended to by Dr'Pentreath he was in the employ of Messrs Bary and Son at Renwicktown. Witness then gave details ot an explosion which had occurred ot some acetylene gas by which he was injured, having some of his ribs badly hurt and broken. Mr Bary had said that he would take him into the doctor if he were able to go, and if not he (Mr Bary) Would get the doctor out. The next day no doctor came and witness was unable to move, so he sent a note up to Mr Bary to this effect, and Mr Bary got Dr Pentreath out, and the doctor attended to him. Some time afterwards witness, acting on the doctor's instructions, went into town to see him. He was away from work for two weeks altogether and Mr Bary did not stop his wages and he received some money from the Accident Insurance Company. He received no further information about the case until he got an account from Dr Pentreath, which witness sent back again, referring the doctor' to Mr Bary for settlement.

The Magistrate said that Dr Pentreath had nothing to do with Mr Bary in this case. To witness: "Did you ask Mr Bary to pay this account ?" Witness had not done so as Mr Bary had said that he would be put to no expense in connection with the accident. He thought Mr Bary had paid the account. He (witness) had not asked Dr Pentreath to come out at all.

J. Bary said that on the morning after the accident he was on his way to church when he met defendant's little girl, who had half-a-crown in her hand, and she asked witness to ring up the doctor for her father. Witness tried to do so, but its being Sunday the telephone bureau was closed, so acting as defendant's agent, he sent for the doctor for him by Mr Tapp.

Lewis Tapp gave evidence as to being asked by Mr Bary to ask the doctor to come out from town.

Judgment was given for plaintiff for the amount claimed with 13s costs.

A QUESTION OF WAGES

William Porter (Mr Conoliy) sued Alfred George Manthell for wages due at follows:—For 6-£ days' at 22s 6d a day for self, three horses and a sledge, £7 6s ad; for 25 days' work, £28 2s 6d and Ss for cutting a ton of flax, making a total of £35 17s 6d less £20 paid on account, which left a balance of £15 17s 6d. A counter claim was entered by the defendant in the action for the recovery of £3 9s 9d, over-pay-ment made on account to plaintiff.

Plaintiff gave evidence as to the work he had done at the mill and the conditions of employment.

Joseph Arthur Andrews, who was manager of Manthell's flaxmill, gave corroborated evidence.

Witness was subject to a long crossexamination by Mr Churchward, as a result of which, among other things, was elicited the fact that there was a discrepancy of about £5 in the amount for which Porter sue_d as set forth in the statement of claim and the entry in one of the manager's account books.

Mr Conolly said that he was willing to reduce the claim to £10 18s 6d.

The Magistrate asked Mr Churchward if he would accept judgment against his client for the reduced amount.

Mr Churchward would not. and the case was adjourned till 2 o'clock.