Pahiatua S.M. Court.

Pahiatua Herald, Volume II, Issue 804, 3 August 1894, Page 3

Pahiatua S.M. Court.

Wednesday, August Ist.

11. Carpenter v George, claim £l7 Is. for ah an engine driver and fitter. Mr Haalett for plaintiff, Mr G. H. Smith for the defence. Alexander Yule gave evidence for the plaintiff as follows He employed plain tiff for two months and found his work satisfactory. After he purled with part of the work to the defendant, he stipulated that the plaintiff should be kept on providing he gave « uisfaetioa. Henry Carpenter, the plaintiff, gave evidence as to his engagement with Mr A. Yule. During his engagement with Mr Yule he always got on well. W hen the defendant took over the contract he paid the let month short a- ho (the plaintiff), had put in extra time. J;y a Juetice: He did not leave before as he had a wife and fanailv and could not shift; ho wot eventually discharged. Frederick Luers, manager for Mr Yulo, bad known the plaintiff repair an engine. The mill had worked longer einre Mr Georg# had taken part of it over. Witness thought it was usual to pay for repairs except when the men were paid wet or tine.

This closed the plaintiffs case. Thomas George, sawmiller at Hawern. gave evidence to the effect that plaintiff had refused his pay the ecoud pay day 1 after ho took over the contract, a* Mr i Yule had engaged him. He found fault ; with hie time on one occasion < n y. then there was a difference of five ponce. Plaintiff was discharged throngn his oosstantly quarrelling with the men. ■V. present at the last settlement, whe. - in tiff was satisfied. To the Beach: i.o did not understand that. Witness had tak ,- n the contract. Elizabeth George, wife of tho Inst vvitlie.s. remembered her husband j-yving plaintiff three times at the house. W’itn is remembered plaintiff corning on tho last occasion and wanting more money, which was refused. Alexander George, sou of the last wit ness, was aware that th*< engine broke down oocanionally. Plaintiff might have repaired t. K.iumald Johansen, employed as enginedriver at the mill at present, deposed tintt the engine was badly out of order. It was understood plaintiff got paid for ro * Judgment was given for defendant with Costs. Fairbrothor v. Wanner, Claim 1 M Pis for gooods HUppplied. Aft r » lot <f argument judgment wan given for plaintiff •yi uuiyuut claimed and and co U. Mr

G. Hamid Smith appeared for the defence. Vairbrother ▼. H. Naylor.—Claim £4 lie 6d for goods auppfied. There was a counter claim put in by Naylor of JG4 for carting stones on to Stevens’ section. Plaintiff was nonsuited with costs.

Mr Haslott appeared for the defence. Fair brother v. Mrs Buckingham.— Claim JOS IBs 4d. Judgment for X*4 19s lOd to be paid by instalments. J. Pringle v. Wagner.—Claim 13 18s fid. Judgment for amount claimed with costs.

J. Pringle v. H. D. Knight.—Claim £H 2s for goods supplied. The defence was that Knight was an undischarged bankrupt. Judgment was givon for pluiutiff for amount claimed and costs. Mr G. 11. Smith appeared for the defence. Mrs Buckingham v. Fairbrothor.—An interpleader ease, bearing ou the seizure of a saddle by the defendant. Tho plaintiff, William Parker, 11. Knight, and Arthur Buckingham gave evidence. Judgment was given for amount claimed with costs.

Mr G. 11. Smith appeared for the plain tiff.