MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 4912, 22 January 1889, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TEMUKA— Monday. 2!sr Jan., 1889. (Before Messrs J. Talbot and K. E. Gray, J.P.’s,) CIVIL CASES. Rawlings and Harte v. T. Cleary, claim £5 12s. Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs. Charles Storey v. C. H. Reid, claim 10s. Mr Aspinall for the plaintiff. Judgment by default for tho amount claimed and costs. E. Brown v. G. Lynch, claim £l7 Is 4d. Mr Aspinall for the plaintiff, Mr Hay for the defendant. Mr Hay applied for an adjournment as he had only just received instructions. Mr Aspinall opposed it as the summons had been served on the previous Thursday. Their worships granted an adjournment for 14 days upon payment of costs and solicitor’s foe. S. Norton v. D. Leach, claim £l7 5s 7d. Mr Aspinall for the plaintiff, and Mr Hay for the defendant.

This case turned upon the question of tho rate of wages at which the plaintiff had been engagid. He swore that he had entered Leach’s service at 255, and had subsequently had the wages raised to 30s per week.

The evidence of the defendant was that he had engaged the plaintiff at 20s per week and had afterwards raised him to 25s per week. After hearing the case at considerable length the Bench gave judgment for the amount claimed and costs, less £3, which the plaintiff alleged he had paid on account, and 30j in lieu of ono week’s notice.

J. Tozer v. T. Cleary, claim £4 18s 6d for biro of a plough and scoop. Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs. The following cases were adjourned on the application of Mr Aspinall, in consequence of the unavoidable absence of the plaintiff Hayes y. T. Bourke, claim £5 17s.

Same v. James Grant, claim £5 Is. Same v. P. O’Mara, claim £2los.

The court then rose