RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 3246, 2 July 1872, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

y - -~ ,-MONDAY, Jkftjj J.ULYt * ';, ' (Before;AuiC/Bteoder Esq.-, RMT. )••'-' , Sullivan,*!. JSdward Brown.—Claim of £4 l&V balance of wages alleged to be due. Mr Stout appeared for plaintiff, andMrHoworth for defondant. A set-off was put in by defendant foir tobacco, meat,' and drink supplied- „., The .stated, that Jhe ,iras engaged by defendant as' groom at 2o*s' per week/and v-m *° && nia ! With regard to the drinks, he stated that defendant invited him,-to s gamble)foe,them by*.''going round' the honi;". but plaintiff on these occa-1 sions was not the loser, ' He.never received any tobacco from defendant 'without paying for it. The defence set up was that plaintiff . had been suppliodiwitb drinks from time- to - tirno to tho value of £4 ob, aad with tobacco of the valne of ss. It was agreed to by plaintiff < and 'defendant that: the Jprice;! of .any-drink* snpplied ,to- the, former,should deducted /rain,, hjs,, wages. ~ Mr ITo- ! worth' submitted;: oh' the liuihdfity of iP/tUpoU v. 'Mite*,' 2, [Atbil, jmSJMis, that^ wKetHer' there wa«^ an "or not, the defendant' hiyl"'* ri^nb-tn appropriate any moneys j>ayable to him on account of dnnksfjuppluid. Tlie'defendant stated that plaintiff, worked,.only four weeks*and aofc five as chargcid foe. T>efendant told plain- - tiff that he was hot:ta continue **Atickihg,«p Wi drinkg'all he was1, doind .every day, but. he did stick up a } considerable number, amounting al'togetßer" to' i' 4 !ss. " Plaintiff was also supplied' With tobacco which he never paid for.. I)eCendant,denied" that Jae ever invited' Tilatntiff %o gamble for 1 drinks; 'buthe migßf jnavoha<f,two orthrco' "shakes" ' with the dice ;fn hw cjouipany.' • ■ <■ ■ / After hearing some- further evidence, ' " The M^istrate' said He was of opinion .thai plaintiff, only worked four weeks. With iregard to the mam question of. appropriation of the whole'of plaintiff's wages, ho was of ..opinion that- the circumstances of this case differed materially from that of v. 'Jpiux. He Timsfc regard the present matter in the light that defendant had appropriated the plaintiff's wafjes to the j)aytaont .of a. daily grog' score without authority, and this grog-score it appeared,had been allowed to' increase daily, notwithstanding that -defendant told plaintiff- he would not- allow him to "s(;ick up" drinks. That cfirtainly appeared incredible. In the interests ■ of morality lie could not all,ow this mac's I wages to be apprbpriate^L It was a direct: i incentive for the plaintiff to drink hard daily, and was a violation of the spirit of the licerisirig Ordinance. Ilevelaiiona had' been' made with regard to some' gambling transactions in defendant's house. He would .recommend'tbo dnfcndanli to bu careful. It? was altogether wrong, and' subversive of the principles of- tbo Licensing- Ordinance. If Brich a thing over came before him, he would, make it, cost (proefching to the-parties,, whb-r ever they might be. Ho would do his best to put it down. By allowing the defendant's net off,, he would be defeating by. a side-wind th«:-infentioii: of the Legislature.' Judgment for plaintiff for £3 13s—four weeks' wagea—together with costs. Brown t7. Sullivan.-—This was a croso* action for the recovery of one week's board of defendant;, before. I he i wss employed by plaintiff; foir tobacco supplied ; and ,for the value.of a IbricUe lost through defendant negligence. Judgment was given for de~ fendaut.: ' , HoSarid m Hendrickeon.— ''laim of &t 12s 7d, balance of «ash lent. Mr Stout appeared for defendant.' After hearing evidence, the Magistrate gave judgment for defendant, pointing out that the money in question-was a contribution to a partnership fund. .Hayes v. F. Rae.—Claim of £9 5a 3d, .for groceries supplied. The defendant admitted liability for £7 5s only. After examining plaintiff's accounts, the 'Magistrate gave judgment for plaintiff for £8 0b 9d, togetherw&h costs. ! Anderson «. .James King.—Claim of £1, amount of lOU. The plaintiff stated that since the action had been commenced, he had received 10s on account.. Judgment was, given by default for plaintiff for 10s, together with costs.