RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Monday.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVIII, Issue 6065, 26 April 1881, Page 6

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Monday.

[Before R. C. Barstow, Esq., R.ILI An adjourned sitting of the Resident Magistrate's Court was held yesterday for the purpose of hearing those cases which had not been taken at the regular sitting of the Court on Thursday. Alfred Karstex v. Thomas Elley.— The claim was for £2 os, damages for wrongful dismissal. Mr. George appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Theo. Cooper for the defendant. The plaintiff deposed that he had been in the employ of ■ the defendant, a butcher, in Parnell, at the rate of 2os a week and board and lodging, up to the 2nd of April. Mr. Elley on that night gave him his money, and told him he did not want him any more. Witness demanded a week's notice, and returned on Monday and offered to work, but defendant would not allow him. He had been out of employment since. The only fault Mr. Elley found with him was that the horse was not clean, but he had nothing to clean the horse with. Crossexamined : He told Mr. Klley lie had been butchering a month, and was able to kill. He was only a week in Mr. Elley's employ. He killed one sheep in the dark. It took him half-au-liour to kill and dress it. The \isual time was from seven minutes to a quarter of an hour. He killed a second one, which appeared to give him satisfaction. On the Saturday night he sent him his money by a messenger, telling 'him that witness was no use to him—that he could not kill. For the defence,' Mr. Elky was examined. Plaintiff represented himself to him as an all-round butcher and good slaughterman, so he engaged him" to kill and deliver orders. He tested the defendant, and found he could not kill, so lie stopped him, and told him lie would not do for Auckland. He paid him off on Saturday night. Richard Miller also gave evidence for the defence, corroborative of Mr. Elley's evidence. The plaintiff was incapable of killing and dressing sheep. Thomas Maoready, watchmaker, deposed to seeing the sheep, which he had been informed was killed by the defendant. He called Mr. Elley's attention to it. It was horribly' pulled about, and not fit to hang in a shop. It looked like a damaged sheep. Judgment for the defendant, with costs, £1 6s 6d.

Samuel Coombes v. Joseph Moreland. —The claim . was £2 Os 6d for goods supplied. Mr. George for the plaintiff and Mr. Keightley for the defence. Mr. Coombes proved the debt. The debt was contracted in 1574, and £2 had been paid on account, lin 1876. Cross-examined : Witness made i an assignment of his effects to his creditors, in 1577, but lie bought back the debts, and they were signed back to him. He was cross-examined as to the items, and produced :his books. He had repeatedly asked the defendant for payment, and forwarded the accounts to him, to Onehunga, but they were never returned. When defendant got the summons, he said there must be some mistake, that he was not the person, but he had never before denied indebtedness. His Worship said there must be proof of the payment of the'£2 in IS7G, otherwise the btatute of Limitations would apply. He would adjourn the case to allow the cashbook to be produced. Cornelius CNeil deposed that; he took defendant's measurement for a suit of clothes, but he could not swear positively that the defendant was the man. He made the entry of the measurement in the book. Mr. George asked : whether Mr. Moreland would allow himself to be measured again ? The ease was then allowed to stand over till 3 o'clock. After the adjournment the plaintiff produced his cash-book, and proved the payment of the £2 on account in April, 1876. The defendant deposed that he never purchased or ordered the goods. Whatever he bought from Mr. Coombes he paid for on the spot. He had never received an account from Mr. Coombes.' There were other Morelands besides, him in the province. He never wore moleskin trousers. Eighteen months ago he bought goods from Mr. Coombes. Mr. Coombes invited him to see the " 15" puzzle, but never spoke to him about an account. He had been in Auckland three or four times a week since 1574. Cross-examined : He never purchased the moleskin trousers' for a man at the mill. He never bought goods other than on his own account. Mi-. Coombes never asked him for payment of this account, and he never received the account through post. A Mrs. Moreland used to reside at Onehunga. Witness never received any of the things mentioned in the bill of particulars, and the first thing he heard of it was the receipt of the summons. The first thing he did after getting the summons was to go to plaintiffs shop and deny the debt. Nonsuited with costs, £1 3s 6d.

H. J. Riobdax v. Elam Gilbert.—The claim was for 19s rent. Plaintiff produced a copy of a notice he had served on the defendant on the 18th February, that the rent would be raised. Defendant removed two weeks afterwards. The defence was that the place had been .taken for six months for 4s a week, and the notice was not delivered till the 25tli. He claimed that that brought the payments up to the time he left, as the notice did not come into operation till the next week. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs 12s.

Charles Watson v. John Waymotjth.— The claim was for £6 10s, wages. The plaintiff was a boatbuilder, and had been employed by the defendant. The defence was that plaintiff had been five half-days off, and had gone away without giving a week's notice, but plaintiff said lie had made allowance for that in his claim. The defendant said plaintiffs father had promised to supply him with £5 worth of tools, but had failed to do so. Judgment for the plaintiff for £6 6s and costs £1 6s 6d.