RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.—Yesterday.

Thames Advertiser, Volume VIII, Issue 2127, 21 August 1875, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.—Yesterday.

(Before W. Phaser, Esq., R.M.) Judgments foe Plaintiffs.—Jßobort Turner v. John Power. Claim £1 19s, cash lent.—Defendant, admitted, owing the money, and judgment was given for the amount claimed and costs.—Jnmes Eenshaw v. the Vanguard G.M.C. Claim £22 4s lOd, for goods. Judgtnont was given subject to the production of the certificate of incorporation of tho company. Tho costs wero £1 15s.—Phillip Warren v. John Norton. Claim £4 3s 6d, amount of account staled. Dofendant confessed tho debt. Mr Warren said he would claim no cosls for his attendance and judgment was given for the amount cliimed, and costs, 9s.—li. Maginn v. Edward Fogarty. Claim £29 Os Gd, for goods. Defendant admitted indebtedness. Judgment for tho nmouut, and costs, 355.

J. W. Adlasi v. Henby Smith.—This was a claim for £22 9s-for goods supplied. Defendant disputed tho price of half-a-ton of potatoes, a portion of which ho sent back because they wero bad. Ho also disputed tho price of 12 empty bags which he never received. Plaintiff said that he had received tho potatoes back since he mado out the account. Ho sent tho sacks to Smith to have gum sent sent down. Ho ordered them personally, and they wore' sliippod with tho other goods at defendant's risk. His Worship gave judgment for £20 Is Gd and costs. Mr Adlam applied for immediate execulion.-His Worship said that he must show good reason.—Mr Tyler asked to have execution stayed for a time. There was money duo to defendant, who was a storekeeper, and ho had abundant to pay 20s in tho pound. - The man, hobelievcd, had every desire to pay his creditors, but a panic seemed to have arisen amongst them, which might ruin tho man. His Worship, pending tho caso against defendant, which was coming on to-morrow, would make 110 order,

P. H. Bdbnin'gham; v. Hy. Smth.— This was a claim for £5 10s for goods and freight, Defendant disputed an item of 13s. Plaintiff did not appear, butjMr I{. Gr. Macky, his agent, was there to prove, the case. Mr Tyler called attention to tho fact that plaintiff did not appear. Mr Macky could not appear for' him, as he had no written authority, and it was only under special circumstances that he could appear for him then. At this stage the plaintiff appeared, and deposed that he knew nothing of tho accounts, but Mr Macky know all about them. Mr Macky was then called, and proved the items from tho freight book. The charge was at tho rate of £1 per ton for freight—Judgment was given for the amount and costs, £14s.—His Worship wondered what was tho cause of the funk. This man's accounts showed very favourably. »

Übadiah Gbant v. E. Hales.—This was a claim for £3 for wagrs. Mr Macdonald for tho plaintiff, rind Mr Tyler for tho defendant. Tho defendant, a storekeeper at Tairua, was examined. Mo employed Grant aB a cook, not as a baker. Tho question of timo and employment was _ admitted, and tho only dispute was with regard to tho wages, Thero was, it appears, no agreemont regarding wages, but lie paid him at the rato of £2 per week and his board and drinks, He paid £2 per week to another man whom ho brought from Auckland instead of the plaintiff, and who was a man of greater experience. Tho plaintiff was then examined, lie deposed that Bales promised on the first occasion 10s a day. Plaintiff did the cookingand superintended tho baking. Subsequently , there was somo dispute which arose about cards, and defendant ordered him to clear out. Ho did clear out, and called next morning, Mr Hales tendered him £2145, but he claimed £7,—JohnCasoy was examined and deposed that when working for wages as baker was £210s a week and his board, or £3 6s and keep himself, Ho should expect more in Tairua.—Geo. Lawson, baker and cook, corroborated this statement.—Robert Hales was re-examined. Ho had been in business in Auckland on a very large scale, and only paid bakers £2 10s without board. Grant was not employed as a baker, but as cook.—.Tames Andrews corroborated the statement that Gr.ant was cook and another man named White was baker, and witness was waiter. From £2 to £2 5s a week was tho current wages for cooks, ho believed. Ho was never employed as cook himself.— James Harrison was also examined. He was a cook. He cooked for Mr Hales for 30s a week, That was what ho asked. For plain cooking £2 was tho highest wages,-Mr Tyler addressed tho Court,— Mr Macdonald replied.—Hir Worship took Grant's version as tho correct one, and gave judgment for tho amount claimed and costs, £3 6s.