MAGISTERIAL

South Canterbury Times, Issue 6274, 22 July 1890, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL

TIMARU —Tuesday, July 22. (Before 0. A. Wray, Esq., 8.M.) j STEALING SHEEP SKINS. John Tozer and George Tozer, of Pleasant Point, were charged with stealing on or about the 17th inst., 87 sheepskins, value £lO 17s, 6d, the property of B. Mackay of Raincliff. Mr White appeared for prosecutor, and asked for a remand to Friday, as the accused were arrested only late yesterday. Mr Hay, for accused, had no objection, but asked for bail. Mr White-represented that the interests of justice might suffer if the accused w.ere set at liberty, and His Worship refused to fix bail at present, and remanded the case till Friday. CIVIL OASES. Several cases first called were struck out, no -one appearing. J. H. Brosnahan v. A. G. McPhee, claim £2 ss. Mr White, for plaintiff, proved the case. Defendant is a book agent, and sold to plaintiff last year a book entitled “ Picturesque Ireland,” and was paid £2 5s for it, plaintiff paying the money on the representation that the book was then in Timaru. After receiving the money defendant said the book had not arrived, and letters had been received from him stating that the book had not arrived in the colony yet, but a stock was on the way. Judgment by default for plaintiff, defendant to deliver the book or return the money.

J. Jackson v. D, Lennie claim £8 6s, judgment summons. Mr White for plaintiff. Plaintiff gave evidence that defendant is employed at 10a per day, and he believed he was able to pay but would not. Defendant was not present. Amount to be paid forthwith, in default four weeks imprisonment, execution to bo stayed if defendant pays 10s per week. His Worship gave judgment in the dispute between —Mahan, master of the collier Jeaie, and A. White, coal merchant and charterer of the Jessie for a cargo of coal from Newcastle. Mahan sued White for £3 7s deducted from freight paid as the charge for weighing the coal, and White sued Mahan for £1 11s 8d value of coal short delivered. His Worship said the charter party provided that the consignee should pay the freight on the pit certificate or after weighing. He was therefore entitled to have the coals weighed at the ship’s charge. He could not however demand the several truck weights for distribution purposes, and must arrange with the master for these, or he would have to weigh again. In the absence of agreement this charge might be fairly divided, as the consignee had some benefit from it. As to the deficient weight the master must be held liable for that. Judgment would therefore be, in White v. Mahan for£l 11s Bd, and in Mahan v. White for £ll3s 6d. This gave a balance of Is lOd in favour of Mahan, and as it was a 11 drawn game ” be need make no order as to costs.

W. Double v. Ogilvie, claim £8 ss, set-off £4 18s.

Mr Hay for plaintiff, Mr Perry for defend ant.

Defendant is an owner of threshing machines and plaintiff had been in bis employ during the past season, first as feeder and then as driver. When they came to settle the plaintiff was not satisfied with the

[ account, and brought the dispute to court to , be settled. He claimed payment at 10s per . day for an odd day or Iwo he was employed getting the mill rea'iy, which defendant i 1 claimed it was customary for feeders to do ■ without payment. He commenced work at I 13s per thousand, and then in consequence of i a strike of the hands which occasioned throe days’ idleness his pay was raised to 15s per 1000. He claimed that defendant reduced his tally at fifteen shillings, and increased that at 13s, and also claimed 10s per day for the three idle days, asserting (hat defendant promised him some allowance. Defendant absolutely denied making such a promise, and as neither the driver nor anyone else who stayed on asked compensation, he did not see why plaintiff should. After plaintiff had been feeding some time, the driver, Mitchell, got a week off to go to the Exhibition, and plaintiff took his place; Mitchell paying a man to make up the gang. Shortly after Mitchell’s return he left altogether, and plaintiff became driver permanently. Defendant paid him as driver 20s per 100 D, only from the time Mitchell left, and he claimed to be paid at that rate for the time Mitchell hod bis holiday. Mitchell, however, was called as a witness and supported defendant, that plaintiff took his place “ as an obligement.” Defendant also charged plaintiff 10s a week for tucker all through, and plaintiff contended the rule was for drivers to be found. Mitchell admitted he was charged for tucker, and made no complaint, but he did not think it was right. Defendant asserted that for some time he had not “ found ” his drivers and that plaintiff must have known this. Defendant also charged plaintiff £1 for cleaning up the machine after the season, staling that plaintiff went away without doing what was usual in this respect. After the plaintiff’s case had been heard and Mr Perry had stated the lino of defence, the court adjourned for lunch, and it was understood that counsel should endeavour to settle the dispute. This they succeeded in doing, and the case was withdrawn.

[Left sitting]