MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 12601, 3 March 1903, Page 7

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

L - MONDAT, MAKCH 2. (Before Mr E. H. Carew, S.M.) Judgment was given for plaintiffs, by .dofault, in the following cases:—R. Collier v. ' EdwaTd R. Rowntrco, claim 10s, on account ' stated and agreed upon between the parties and '"• admitted by tho defendant to be due (costs ss); I) Walter Taino- v. William Smith (Napier), claim i, £3 Gs 3d, for goods supplied (cost 3 lls); J. P. 15 Simon v. John Smith. (South Dunedin), claim 15s 3d, for boots. ' Edwaxd Thomas Batomnn v.' Adolpho n Frederick William Lorio.— Claios £8 14s, for '• v/ork done and rnatcri.il supplied, a portion of a which was only disputed, tho balance (£1 9s) being paid into court.—Hi Wpodhouse ap- (' pearcd for plaintiff, and Mr Sim for defendant. '" ; —After evidence had been taken tho case was adjourned to the Gth inst. in order that two '■' witne3se3 who were not present might give 3 evidence. , '' Arthur Burnett v. Fyio aifd Cuming.-Claim a £22155, made up of £217s 6d for n week'swages . 3 during a. fortnight's holiday, and £19 7s Gd for ,' wrongful dismissal during the current year of '• plaintiffs services. The £19 7s Gd was for h wages from the 24th January to the 2Gth February, at tho rate of £2.l7a'Gil per week, and ' ■ £5 for commission on the sale of goods to tho , ■ extent of 4700.—Mr Findlay, who appeared fov plaintiff, explained that plaintiff had been in y the employ of defendants as mar.agoi of' tho outfit department, and was engaged at £2 17s n 6d ii week and a commission on an excess over 'J a certain output. Plaintiff told Mr Cuniing 8 that ho was entering into business on his own I" account, intending to give his services for five !S or six weeks before leaving. He had been away !° for a fortnight's holiday, and asked for wages ;? for half that time. Mr Cuming appeared to * have heard during his absouco of his intention J 1 ■ "to. go into business on his own account, and, '* j when told of the fent by ph-nitiff, became an--1 noyed, and Enid he had not acted honourably. |J ! Ho told plaintiff ho could lcuvi , his employ at : or.co, but plaintiff worked for a week longer, *; Mr Cuming retained him til! the 24th January, and paid Win up to that time, but refused to ?■ , pay him for holiday time. The engagement ; took place about the e»:l of February, 1899, i 0 j and connsel submitted that it ras a yearly , J hiring. The presumption waa that it was so r j unless there were circumstances that rebutted I trie presumption. Tho circnnHanw 'hit p!ai!iI HIT wan to )>e pir-' 1 ccimir.ission on a- certain anmwl output was a presumption, that it was a> ™ j yearly hiring.—Pinintiii liwfasr jlvcn evidence, ?' j Mr Kmslie,- who appeared fov defendants, said i that when told by plaintiff that In wns going "T into business on his own account Mr Cuming vras annoyed, and, alter a- convcrnation, it was ,_ agreed between tliom that plaint iff was to work '" the week out and then go. At the end of tho j week Mr Cnming settl id uu with him, nnel then intended to make- up- from ihe books the amount ho was entitled to for commission on output. As a matter ot fact hi paid him £12 . j lib for commission.—lt being 5 o'clock the further hearing 6f the case was adjourned to ;° March G.