RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Monday, 31st July, 1865. (Before T. W. Parker, Esq , R.M.)

North Otago Times, 3 August 1865, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Monday, 31st July, 1865. (Before T. W. Parker, Esq , R.M.)

Mm CASE3. M. Noble v M. Holmes— Cl.iim, LT3 17s. Mr Allan, Mr Holmes' manager at Awa Aloa, appeared on behalf of the defendant;, and explained that an order for payment of the account had been, made in Dunediu, but that he could pay the money into Court, and stop the order in Dnnedin. The case was settled at once in this manner. Simmonds v. H. Wilmott.— The defendant appeared and stated his desire to have a re-hearing of the case, on the grounds that the plaintiff swore falsely respecting tho contract which he had taken under him. After no more work was found for him At shepherding (for which he was originally engaged), Simmonds was told by defendant theie was a job at cutting timber which he might have, and that after he finished it there would be nothing further for him to do, and that no more wages would be given him. Wilmott considered the original engagement for a year to be broken by the plaintiff accepting other contracts after being told that there would be no moie work or wages for him when those were finished. Defendant did not know if Simmonds considered the original agreement at an end. Mr O'Meagher objected to a new tiial, on the ground that any rebutting evidence of the nature Mr Wilmott had mentioned, should have been presented when the case was recently before the Court. The Bench considered that a re-hearing might be granted on the gionnds (1) of the plaintiff having .stated that he leceived no work after his discharge under the first agreement, whereas he had accepted a subsequent contract with the defendant, and (2) of excessive damages. Mr O'Meagher did not like to take any technical objections to a re-hearing of the case, but there being a direct charge of false-swearing against the plaintiff, he felt himself entitled to take every advantage. The accusation of false-swearing was a mere assertion, a statement not made on oath. There was also the fact that a new trial should have been moved for within a reasonable time after the first trial. The Bench did not think there was any specified time for this being done. Mr O'Meagher also contended that the bush work Simmonds had been put to would entitle him to extra wages, and that the contract for this work was not clearly shown, and no price mentioned. The Bench thought a new trial might at all events be granted on the ground of Abatement of damages, through the existence of this contr*ct. Mr O'Meagher said he should not have been at all averse to it re-hearing, had it it not been for reasons ha previously mentioned, Mr Wilmott handed to th» Magistrate copy pf tha notice lodged with tho plaintiff; but the Magistral© found no mention of theground of " excessive damages." Mr Wilmott »aid he did not claim on that ground, as he believed the original contract to have been canoellfld through subsequent agreements. The Magistrate then said that the application had better be made on affidavit, and^-after a copy had been lodged with plaintiff for his reply, he would consider whether there were sufficient grounds before him to justify a re-opening of the case. The defendant, being compelled to leave Oamaru early, said he should not have sufficient time for this, and agreed to let the matter rest.