MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10307, 14 March 1895, Page 4

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wednesday, March. 13. (Before Mr E. H. Carew. S.M.) Crag and Smith v. Thomas Burns (Gore).— . Claim £3, balance due i-u gcous supplied.—Judgment was given for the plaintiffa with costs. % G M. Burlinson (luan.ger cf the Caversham Industrial .--'chool) v. Samuel Hill.—Claim j6W 10.-, for the maintenance of two children for 29 weeks.—The defendant admitted the debt, but said he had no means wherewith to pay it.—The plaintiff aaid that since the children had been in the .chool the defendant had paid only £1. If the man lived a steady life there was reason tohelieve he could pay the •amount.—His Worship gave judgment for the amount claimed, and directed that it should be paid by weekly instalments of 10s until tbe full amount wax paid. Dennis James Heenan v Edward Heenan, ; Tboman Ross, and Margaret Heenan (executors of the will of the late William .Heenao).—Claim J-K_*S 10s, wages alleged to be due l>y tbe deceased at the date of the litter's dentil. The defendants filed a counter claim for _£4-K Ss tid for (.razing sllfg-d to be due by the plaintiff to the deceased and for moneys paid by the deceased tn or'on : account of the plaintiff.—Mr Hanlon sppear-d for the p'aintiff and Air I'mser f -r the defendants. — Mr Hanlon, jn opening the case, said the plaintiff Was ii son of t_v_ late William Heenan, of Maungatua, and lived. for many, years with his father, but'after his father married a BHCoud time lie left home'on account of a disagreement with his stepmother. In-January 1-S5 tbe plaintiff received a letter from his father, and in cuu-fqu.iice went borne again. Ir. was then arranged that he should enter tha service of his ■ father at a remuneration of £1 a week, and he started under that agreement on the 19th January _535. Acouplc of settlements took place between the plaintilf and his father—one in 1&.8 ahd the other iv WHO.—and thesi were the only two occasion, on which settlements were made. The claim fer jCI3B ran from the date of the settlement about the l!"*,h January 1S8(. until Hie father's death on the 17th September 1892. Spiue negotiations for ii settlement had taken place, but tho parties w .. unable to rome to' terms, the executors feeling that they would not be jiitit.fied iv coming to a settlement without the judgment of the court.— Mr Fraser : Partly that arid partly because they do not think the. .plaintiff, is entitled.—Mr Hanlon s->id the plaintiff would adniiL.cer-aiii cntriiw in the books,..bowleg that about £2(i had been paid to him besides what had been credited. As soon as the father died the plaintiff made application for wages when the other -."rvants were being paid. 000 of the o.t-c ors asked Mrs Heenan if the claim wi.si all right, and the replied that ahe «up|!o..ed it was right; but a month later the executors refused to settle, and the'plaintiif then filed a riociaiation of proof of debt with the solicitors to tin; executors. Respecting .the defendants' counter claim, the plaintiff had heard comparatively nothing about it till after tbe summons was issued, though it was contended that thin money had been owing since the date of, the d--ath of William Heenan.—_iir Fraser said tha counter claim was more in the r.atujte of a -ist-off. The defendants-had no intention of doing inori* than meet the claim. The counter claim was iv the nature of a set-off to equalise the positions—Mr Hanlon put in a' letter from the defendants'solicitors, in which it was admitted ) that the plaintiff went to work on the 19th January ISSS at_£l a week.—Dennis James Heenan having given evidence, the plaintiff's casa was closed.-—Mr Fraser then opened the case for the defence, which was to tbe effect that entries in the deceased's ledger, kept by deceased's wife, showed that various payments had been made to and for the plaintiff amounting to considerably over the amount of the claim, and that the plaintiff was indebted to the estate to the extent of jSJI-5 for grazing sheep on the deceased's property. Septimus Brent, bank agent at Outram, having given evidence, the further hearing of the case was adjourned till the 20th inst.'