RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XI, Issue 3915, 30 May 1874, Page 1 (Supplement)

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday. /Before Thomas Beckham. Esq., R.M.] The ordinary weekly sitting for determining small debt claims was held to-day, and the following business disposed of: Undefended Cases (Judgment for Plaintiffs).—Perkins v. Perrier, £5 (costs 945);

Brown v. Bartlett and Co., £3 12s 8d • Ashton v. Flaherty, £1 10s. ' Adjoukjted. —George v. Leighton, £3 i s 4d (fortnight) ; Opira Waaka v. Harris, £20 (a week) ; Butcher v. Vaile, £13 (a week). Sharlaxd v. Scott (Judcsme.vt).— This case was heard last Court-day, being a claim for damage done to a quantity of cherrysyrup in process of delivery from the Hylton Castle, of which the defendant is master. His Worship gave judgment for the plaintiff, £7 7s 10d and £'5 costs.

Macdonald's Trustees v. Smith.—Mr. Heskctli for plaintiff, Mr. Joy for defendant. The estate of Macdonald is in process of liquidation under the Bankruptcy Act. The defendant was the leader of a gang of men who worked on the Kaipara railway. These men used to undertake piece-work, and they were paid every month according to the work done. Macdonald kept a store, and the men used to obtain wearing apparel, drink, and eatables during the month's interval between each payment. The claim was for £10 19s 9d, but of this amount about £7 was for drink. The defendant said he was only a workman with the others, although the whole lot used to take the work at so'inujii a chain. He used to keep a pass-book t'.K.mg!! with the "tucker" for the party used to be accounted for. The contractor used to give his cheque for the monthly payments to the storekeeper, who cashed the cheque, aud the men, receiving their respective shares, settled what they had each to pay " towards the book." Upon the last occasion when the men were paid the cheque upon the store amounted to £29 Gs. The storekeeper in this case stopped the whole amount of money due by the men, and tendered the balance to Smith, who refused to take it. Smith now said the sum thus withheld represented private scores and accounts by the men, for which he was not responsible. He denied any liability on account of any goods, except those obtained through the pass-book. A witness named McDermot beard the defendant Smith caution the storeman against supplying the men with drink, and say that he (Smith) would not be responsible for such debts. The nominal plaintiff, McDonald, said that although there were several men working with Smith, yet several of them camped apart. These he had no claim against. But Smith and others camped and lived together, and their account was kept together. The entries were made by McDonald's clerk, and he could not swear to them. The clerk had, however, since the date in question left the province. Considerable argument ensued as to whether entries so made were admissible as evidence. Mr. Westmoreland, collector for the trustee, said the account sued upon by the plaintiff was made from the ledger and waste-book of Macdonald. Witness, with Maefarlane's clerk, went over the items, item by item. After counsel on both sides had addressed the Court, plaintiff accepted a nonsuit, with £5 14s costs.

Tuomi'.sox v. Douglas. — This was an action for damages, to the extent of £15, occasioned by a dog belonging to defendant biting and injuring one which was the property of the plaintiff. Mr. Keetley appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. MacCorrnick for defendant. A large amount of evidence, both European and Maori, was taken in regard to the ferocious propensities of the assaulting dog, and the ciroumstauees under which the conflict occurred. The dog which indicted the damage was described as a bulldog of savage character, and propensities similar to those usually accredited to canine animals of that breed. The bitten animal appeared to be an inoffensive sheep-dog, and might be worth about £10. The whole mischief seemed to have occurred by the assault of plaintiff's dog upon that of defendant on account of a little jealousy in regard to receiving the favours of a lady dog. His Worship held that it had not been proved that the dog iva9 naturally of a ferocious disposition, and that it had been shewn that the dog was in charge of defendant at the cimc, and consequently defendant had used care to prevent mischief. His Worship therefore directed a nonsuit, allowing £12 lGs expenses. Senduy v. Messenger.—This was a claim for wages. Mr. Joy .appeared for defendant, and plaintiff conducted his own case. He had been dismissed without notice, and claimed pay for two and a-half weeks, besides a week's pay on account of having been sent away without notice, —in all, £4 ss. Plaintiff failed to prove Ilia case, and, as it was shewn by defendant and another witness that he liad misconducted himself, and had then been thrust out, His Worship held that the dismissal had been a rightful one, and gave jugment for plaintiff for 10s, with 19s costs. This concluded the lousiness.