RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURTS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 1169, 30 September 1865, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURTS.

Friday, 29th Septembek. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.)

Drosxenkkss. —Richard Patton, Jotu. Fullartoo, Henry Houston, pleaded guilty to having been drunk, and were each Sheet 20s or 48 ru/urs' imprisonment. George Aitkenhead was charged with a ; similar offence, but denied it. The constable stated that at midnight, on the 2sth inst., he found the defendant staggering dowrt St. David street, and makmg a great noise. The case was adjourned for oae day for the evidence of a witness, who-was said t* have seen the defendant in a..3tate of intoxication.

CIVIL CASES.

Samuel Wendall v. John-. B«n.—Tbi* was an adjourned claim of. &i 9s lOd, a. balance ol an account lor (irocery goods supplied. The defendant pleaded that he haa never received a btfl-of particulars; he might be owing a smalt balance, but he could not say how much. The plaintiff stated that he coui&uot now produce a bill of piirticul-rs, as- bis book waa destroyed while he wa? away at HokiU&i; but he had irecpvntly informed th? defendant of the state ot his account wheahe paid small sumsonaccount. Itwa3proved that the defendant saw the book before it. was destroyed,.and expressed himsalf satisfied with the s.'a,te of his account.. A. wit-, ness heard the defendant sav^, that it Wendall summoned him, "he would note pay him a farthing, but i« be. did not he would pay him ultimately." Jaiigpieak for the plaintiff in the full amount, am*. costs Dunlop and Ctithbertsofl'a. Trustees* vJames Duncan.—-Claim of L - I8s» for grocery goods Bold ans delivered. The defendant admitted the debt. An arrangement was made as. to payment, and judgment was gma, by consent, for th«. pla'ntifF>, with costs. J. A J. Masgregorv. Francis Harkness. — Claim of L 3 2s, tne amount of a promfesorjr note. Tbe debt was admitted, and offered to be paid at the rate of 2s 6d a week. Tin* waa not accepted, and judgment was gm» for theTjlaintiff, with coats. "■' Millaf Dick mi Co. t. W. W. WflWiM*-

-*-"r^ fin 17s 6d. for sundry election "Cl. ain ?° work done The defendant paid Pf Xt L 10? dieted some of the "J.™*. _nds*atedthatin some instances tKders bad ben exceeded An expert wLnroved the charges tobeftir and Wt %Jle The defendant stated with reSc otwo ofthe items charged, that Z order for one double demy poster was thZn on two slips of paper, and the Xfor two hundred copies written at the SnHhe second slip. He intended it to Kn poster, but the plaintiffs split it up s!^ made two posers, pnntm? two hundred •fefeb snd spoiling the effect of the LtVr He complained of this at the Ime ' Another item was charged extra for having been printed durin_ the night, but the defendant stated that he gave the order early in the day, and it was by no fault of histi^ the work was done during the _\<Axt An expert witness was called for the defence, who said that, the prices were re3 c o _at*le, and "he would never have dis-.-puted the account bimse f." The Magistrate was inclined, from the appearance of the order, to take the defentlant's view of -the case with regard to the two posters,, which oup.ht to fo have been printed as one. He made several other reductr.ns in the account, and gave judgm- nt for the plaintiffs Ll2 12s Gd, and costs, i.cludiDg the sum paid into Court. Barbara Ingram v. William Christie.— -Claim of L2, as two weeks' wages. The plaintiff was engaged by the defendant ss cook at the Caled >nian Hotel, at tie rate of Ll per week. During the first vvefk she was there the d-ftndantcomplait ed that she did not do enough work. On the morning of the tenth day a quarrel took pla-*e, because the breakfast was not ready. The defendant then told her to go out ofthe house, or he would put hr out. She went out, hut returned and asked her wages; and he told her that if she entered the h use a<-*_in, he would put her out. The defence was that ou the third day that the plaintiff was in his house, he paw that she would not suit, and he told her to leave the house. She would not do fa ; and on the tenth mom;nz when he came down he .found the plain tiff drunk, and no breakfa-t ready. He was much annoyed at his boarders Inving to wait for their breakfasts, and hi turned the plaintiff out of his house. He had paid her no wages. A witness proved that the plaintiff was drunk on the inorninz when she wa-- turned out of the hotel; aud he had frequently hi ard ■the defendant complaining that the mea's were not ready in time. The Magistrate laid the plaintiff was entitled to one week's wages; but nothing for the remaining four days, in cons-qti'H.ce of her misconduct. Judgment for the plaintiff Ll, and costs. John __<-dz*ie v. T. O. Low.—Claim of L_o, for depicturing a flock of sheep at the Half-way Bush, and board nnd lodging for Ihe shepherd. The defendant paid into Court L 4 10-*, on account of the item LlB 18s, for the d'-pa-'unng of 932 sheep for 21 days: and disputid all the items for board and lodgine for the shepherd, as he was not authorised to incur expenses on account of his master. The plaintiffs case was that the defendant's shepherd brought a flock of she* p. and placed them in his paddock, stating that they were Mr Low's, and that he was anthori-ed to live at the plaintiffs accommodation house; j and that M< Low wou'd be responsible for his board Mr Low afterwards arrived, and arid he wa* aware that the sheep were in the plaintiffs paddock; but nothing was said with respect to the shepherd's board. It was the *Usnj_l-cnetiM»-»o-eKarp^--tIie^ shepherd's "board in the snine account with the depasturing of the s>u-ep, and the charge made of 2-* per hundrt d per day, for paddocking the sheep, was usual and f»ir and reasonable. A wi'nes=* proved that this charge was les*** than that usually made. The defendant's statement was that he paid his shepherds at fo much per day, and they had no authority to H*-e at an hotel at his c-.st. They ha*! to find themselves in food wherever they went with sheep. He did not authorise the sheep to he depastured in the plaintiff's paddock, hut he offered to pay a reasonable .amount, and to re'er the matter to arbitration. Many of his shepherds had lived at the plaintiffs house, but he never paid for the board of any of them. For the keeping of the same flock of sheep in a yard he had only been cha-a'cd by a Mr Demer 2s Gd per night, which he thought was a reasonable charge. Mr Kennedy, sheep and cattle inspector^ stated that he inspected this flock of sheer>. The paddock in which •they were piact-d at the plaintiffs place was quite bare. As to the practice of paddocking .berp.at night, and letting them out on the hundreds (luting the day, he had received 30s pn- week for paddocking 1000 sheep. It was a benefit to the land to have the sheep put into a paddock at night. In some cases, at Port Chalmers, for instance, where the accommodation was very limited, hehad received 4s per hundred per nigtit, but the sheep were there supposed to he fed. He thought a fair price for the paddocking of the flock of sheep referred to in this case was 30s per weik, considering t' at it wa-* the winter season when they were on the land, and would he a benefit to it. The Magistrate said there were two points to consider in this case. First, with regard to the liah-li*y of the defendant for the board ,md hid.in;? of bis servant, tin* ■shepherd. The .hoop were put into the paddock with the full consent of the defendant, who confirmed the act of his servant, and led the plaintiff to helieve that he would pay for the shepherd's hoard. The prices charged for hoard and lodging were not in dispute. He held that the defendant was unquestionably liable for the shepherd's board, became he could make any arrangemnt he thought proper with his shepherd, but it was impossible for the plaintiff to know what that arrangement was. The second point was the charge for paddocking the sheep, and he thought the charge made of 2* per hundred per day was excessive. He would allow Is per hundred per day, and g;ve judgment for the plaintiff LlO lis and costs, inclusive of the turn paid into Court. Judgments by default were given in the •following cases:—Dunlop and Cuthbertson's Trustees v. W. Wright, Ll6 14s 4d for grocery goods; A. D>w v. A. W. Palmer, I*s. for one week's rent of a ■cottage.

From April 24, 1163, to July, 1864. the number of flogging cases iv tbe United Kingdom under the Whipping Acts, and by orders of judges and magistrates, was 1138. The greatest number of cases has been in Middlesex—2o9. Lancashire follows next, with 194, while Yorkshire had only 71.