RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 2841, 31 October 1883, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

TlMAßU— Tpesdat, Oct. 30. (Before J. Bewick, E>q , 8.M.) UKCNKHKNBS3. Biohnrd 801l »bs charged with being drunk the previous day in the Main South Hoad. Ho pleaded guilty nnd said he wishod to makn " a very strong appral to your Worship's clemency this morning." The appeal was quite counteracted by the fact that ho had been convicted of tho Biimn offence throttimes before during tbo present year, and His Worship fined him 20*, with tbo alternative of 9G hours' impri-onment. CIVIL CASES. Judement by default was given in the case Wade and Shea v. If. Cornelius — Claim £10 17a SM, cotti 19!. Ills Worship said ho would give judgment in tho cftic McOlatchie v. Bank of New Soutb Walea on Friday. N. Murphy v. N. Quinu— Claim £5 15s. Mr Perry for defendant. In this ca»e, the plaintiff, a building contractor, claimed £45 15j for making alterations to certain buildings in George street, and defendant, on tho advice of the architect, Mr Duval, tendered and puid £10 as sufficient payment, objecting that the charges for labor were oiceisivo. For tho dofonce Mr Perry called Mr Duval, who stated that at fho timetha work was done ordinary carpenters was from' ; 7»toßs per day, the very pick of joiners only getting 10s per day, whilo p'aintiff had charged 10s per dny for all his mon, who it wasallog-d, were most of them rough carpenters. But Mr Perry also called throK of tho men win had been working for pluintiff on the job and two of them stated that they wero paid 10s, and ono »aiii he had never worked for less, and then eaid he received Oj a day for four day--. Mr G. O. Clayton, also called by Hie defence, stated that he never employed carpenters at lee* than 10s a day, and that no distinction w.vs mode in the trade between carpenters aud joiners. His Worship said as no arraneement was made brforehand ns to tho rate of wago« to bo charged, and ho had no reason to a'lumc that the p'ainliff or his workmen had perjured themselves, he would deduct Is a duy on account of four d'iy»' work by the man who said ho received 9s, and give judgment for £5 11b and cost?. W. Davidson v.B. Wilkin and Co.— Claim, Mr Hameraley for plaintiff, Mr Tosswill for defendant*. This cose had been adjourned for tho evidence of Arthur Kembcr, which was taken now a« follows : — Arthur Komber : I was lately acting f>r Messrs R. Wilkin and Co. in Timaru. I was in their employ in June IGB2. I remember damaged grain being *old out of either tho City of Cashmere or City of Perth. Mr William Davidson, agent for tho Union Insurance Comp»ny, ipoke to me about a claim he had for commission duo to him on the grain. I knew nothing abaut any arrangement. I rememher writing out a cheque to Davidson, but it waa never signed. I cannott remember who gavo me ins'ructions to write out tho ebequo, but I presume Mr Bourn did. I underttiod that Mr Davidson was to reooive half the commission on the account sales. I romember telling Davidson that I thought I could get his account written off as against the commiaeion. I understood both from him and Mr Bourn that a commission was owing him. Crnfs-examined by Mr Tooswill : The cheque was written out after the sale, I handed tho cheque to Mr Bourn for sigimtore, but Mr Oliver, a momber of the firm ordered it to bo destroyed. Ido not think I wrote it out at Davidson's request. MrOlivei said Davidson was not entitled to Bnj csrnmission, as the eale hßd been arrangod in Chri-tchiuoh. Davideon'a account was novel written off the books by me. It wa9 usual tc write off at the end of the htjf year any b\r or contra aocounts. To the beat of my belie Davidson assented when I said I thought could get his account written oEE as againß tho commiFß : .on. The oaso wns then further adjourned and tho Court rose.