RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Marlborough Press, Volume XIII, Issue 823, 16 October 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, Oct. 10. (Before S. L. Muller, Esq., R.M., and J. Allen, Esq., J.P.) ABUSIVE LANGUAGE. James Channing was charged with having used abusive language to Mr J. Green. After evidence had been taken, the defendant was reprimanded, and ordered to pay the costs of Court, amounting to 11s. Defendant stated that he would be unable to pay the amount under three weeks, as he was working for Messrs Brogden and Son for 30s per week, out of which amount 19s 6d per week was stopped. Under these circumstances, it would he impossible for him to pay the amount under the time mentioned. The Bench, after consideration, allowed three weeks for payment of the amount, stating that unless it was paid the defendant would have to suffer one week’s imprisonment. [ln connection with this case, some facts came out that should be remembered, as it was stated from the Bench that the offence with which the man was charged rendered the oflender liable to a penalty of <£2o. To those who are in the habit of using language “ not fit for ears polite,” such a salutary check is likely to work in two ways, for it will restrain impulsive people from using bad language, and will prevent those who have an antipathy for oaths from having their ears polluted with many sentences that now too often may be heard in our streets.] EDWARDS r. THURSTON. This was a claim for 14s 7d. Mr Conolly appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Church for defendant.

Mv Conolly stated that the plaintiff was brought out by Messrs Brogden and Co. for the purpose of working on the railway works. After being employed for some time, day-work was stopped on the line, and he went to work for defendant, who employed him for some days, when his services were dispensed with, and at the same time a portion of his wages was stopped on the plea that the plaintiff was indebted to Messrs Brogden and Son and that the amount kept back was to go towards the liquidation of their debt. Mr Conolly called Edward Edwards, who, being sworn, said: I am a laborer, and came from England a few months ago to work for Messrs Brogden. I worked on the Picton and Blenheim railway until day-work was stopped, when Mr Thurston, who had a contract, employed me. I worked 8| clays at 6s 6d per day, for which I received <£l 19s, leaving a balance of 14 s 7d, which amount defendant lias refused to pay. Mr Thurston said the sum was stopped from him by Mr Brogden’s agent here. I did not know the money would be stopped, and I did not authorise him to stop the amount. There was no other reason given. Cross-examined by Mr Church : We were promised by Mr Brogden’s agents 6s per day, wet and dry, and we agreed to allow a deduction when working for the firm.

Counsel called for a book in which certain accounts were kept, but as the subpoena to produce it had been served in Court on plaintiff only on the same morning, Mr Conolly refused to allow the book to be put in evidence. Mr Church said that Mr Thurston never agreed to pay more than 6s per day, and plaintiff agreed to allow the deduction now sued for. Excepting this, the whole amount duo was paid to plaintiff. Charles Thurston, sworn, said : I am a contractor under J. Brogden and Son. I engaged Edwards, but made no agreement for wages with him. The wages were 6s per day. I paid lnm LI 19s, at the rate of 6s per day. I made a deduction fiom the full amount of £2 9s 6d, as I was bound to do so by the terms of my contract. There was an agreement between myself and Messrs Brogdon and Son, that I should deduct at least one-fiftli of the amount of the wages. I did not tell plaintiff that I would make a deduction from his wages equal to this amount. When I paid the <£l 19s, I showed him a list, and I don’t think he said anything about the stoppage. More than a week after he had been paid the <£l 19s, a claim was made for this 14s 7d. Cross-examined by Mr Conolly : On the 14th September the amount was paid to plaintiff, and some time after, a bill was presented to me for the sum of 14s /dWhen the claim was made by plaintiff, I did not read the account, and did not notice that he claimed 6s 6d per day. I was paying some men more than 6s per day j some received as much as 6s 6d. I did not tell plaintiff whjch he was to have. The men who received 6s 6d did not know they would have so much. The ganger employs men. without consulting me.

Mr Church, addressing the Bench, said the plaintiff’s case rested on the fact that the rate of pay was 6 s per day, not 6s 6d and that, the plaintiff acquiesced in the deduction of the amount sued for. Mr Conolly said the plaintiff was stated to have acquiesced in the deduction because he allowed four days to elapse before making a claim, hut on reference to an almanac it would he found that the claim was made oil the very first available day. Nothing was said to the man about the excess of his charge for wages; and it was only lately that the mode of defence was determined upon, and this was because something must he shown to account for deductions. The case was simply one in which a stoppage had been made from the plaintiff's wages to pay debts due to a

third person, and in which stoppage the plaintiff did not acquiesce, so that the defence conld not hold for a moment. The Bench, in giving judgment, stated that they would allow that the rate of wages should be 6s per day As to the deduction for Messrs Brogden, this was decidedly contrary to law, and would not he allowed. To make it lawful, an agreement must be made and agreed to between the parties, so that when men were engaged they might consent to the deductions being made to render any stoppage from the wages legal. Undei these circumstances, judgment would be for plaintiff for 10s 6d and £1 16s costs. A case in which some Maories were concerned occupied a considerable time, but was not of general importance. Some other civil cases were also decided, but all were of minor interest.