RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 3570, 10 March 1886, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

TlMAßU— Tuesday, Slabch 9th. (Before J. S. Beswick, Esq., R.M.) DBrjNKBNJTESS. Three first offenders were fined 5s each for this offenco. Frank Green and Robert Craig, two old offenders, were each fined, 10s. CIVIL CASES. E. Webster v. J. Keid, claim £1 2s sd. No oppeiiranco of defendant. Judgment was given for amount claimed and costs. J. Mclntosh and Co. r. J. Breen, claim £1 189. This case was ordered to stand over for a week m order to let plaintiff find out amount defendant has earned. — Sinclair v. J. Balfour, claim £27 83 Bd. Sir Hamcrsloy for defendant ; Mr Aspinall for the plaintiff. This case was brought up again after having been adjourned for a fortnight. The casa is, that Sinclair is suing Balfour for wages when really ho was staying on the farm as a friend, and not as a laborer at wages. .All witnesses were ordered out of Court. James Balfour, defendant, m reply to the Beach, said that Sinclair never came when lie first wrote, but about six month's afterwards. To Mr Hamersley : He was with witness for about twelve months. He was treated ns one of the family. When ho arrived he had nothing but what was on his back, and witness gave him clothes from time to time. Witness did everything for him, even to his washing and mending. He was not treated os a man m witness' employ. Ho lived m the house with witness' family, while the other men lived m hut. Witness never filled his place up with another man after ho left. Plaintiff applied for several situations, and witness nover agreed to give him any wages or ever thought of doing so. The only work he did was going round the sheep. He tried to learn to cut gorse so as ho could get a situation. For six weeks after he came to witness' place he never did anything. After that time ho sometimes would fetch m tho hack or bring the cows m. He never did anything to tho lambs as witness could not trust him. Plaintiff never asked for a penny while ho was working for witness. He was no use to witness, but cost him (witness) more than he was worth. When plaintiff came, witness was not m wont of a man. Mr Hamersley put m a set-off to which Mr Aspinall objected, and on the Bench overruling it was struck out. Witness continuing said ho would never have taken plaintiff into his house only on account of the letters of introduction from his friends. To Mr Ajpinall, cross-examined. Witness said ho heard the plaintiff was slaying with a boy at Grant's farm. He did not know plaintiff at all till he got tho letter from him. Plaintiff wrote to witness and asked if he might como and stay with him ; that ho was a shepherd, and had two good dogs, to which witness wrote stating that ho might como. He (plaintiff) roplied that he would como, but did'nt. He'caaio about six months afterwards and stayed with witness. Witness couldn't send him away. He never looked after the sheep, nor did ho do any ploughing. Ho could not cut thrco chains of gorso m a day. He was treated as ono of the family. He slept m a room by himself m witness' house, although there was room m tho mons' hut. When he waa m Timaru he might look over tbo lambs. He sworo positively that ho never had any conversation with plaintiff about wages. To Mr Hamersley : The cows wero going dry through plaintiff trying to milk them. , He never milked before he came to tho farm. 1 Francis Hall, a ploughman, working for 1 defendant, deposed that when plaintiff came , to defendant he wa3 not wanting a man. . Plaintiff was knocking about the house ; staying mostly inside. This witness corroberated tho defendant's evidence, and ' added that plaintiff had told him that ho would do no work because ho was not getting wages. Witness would have given him nothing as a farm hand. Ho was no hand among sheep nt all. Ono time when he was assisting " li.ig^tug" the sheep he killed two of them. To Mr Aspinall he said he was still with 1 defendant. He left him m April, and came back to him m October. There wero , two men on the farm when Sinclair came. 1 Witneaa nover attended sheep ; ho only used to help with the "dagging" and dipping. Plaintiff used to look after tho sheep. He 1 was away during the day, and couldn't tell what plaintiff was doing. He was not able 1 to do farm work. There were three bunks m ; the men's huts, and they were not all occupied when he was there. To Mr Hamersley : Defendant was away 1 very seldom, and when he was away plaintiff used to walk round the sheep to see if they were all right. Charles Macdougall proved to plaintiff going round the sheep, adding that he had seen an advertisement m the papers for a job, and had applied for it. He thought plaintiff was a- relation of defendant's by the way he was treated. To Mr Aspinall witness said ho was a 1 mason, but had been harvesting lately. He . was at defendant's last December, but never looked after the sheep. There waa nobody m plaintiff's place before he came, and nobody since. This was the case for the defence. A slight 1 discussion here ensued owing to counsel for plaintiff wishing to bring evidence to rebut i the defendant's statement. On tho Bench . overruling, George Best was called and repeated tho evidence about tho gorse-cutting, adding that plaintiff said he waa getting 12s 6d per week.

r After counsel on both sides had addressed the Bench at great length, and the Bench reviewed the evidence, judgment was given for 1 the defendant with costs. Mazengarb v. Murphy and Stock— Claim ■ £15, for riding. 1 Mr Raymond appeared for the plaintiff and ; Mr Hamersley for tho defendants. ', Ihis case was brought up on remand, it , having been adjourned m order to let de--1 fendants bring a cross-account. Albert Mazengarb deposed he was a jockey . and groom. During 1882 ho was employed by Murphy and Stock m the livery stables. He had nothing to do as a jockey. The rate of wage waa £1 per week for groom. He was suing now for fees for riding m three ; races at the rate of £3 a race. He rode m the Albury Cup, Handicap, and Hurdle Race; ; He also rode at Pleasant Point. All the i races were rode under the South Canterbury 1 Jockey Club's rules (copy of rules put m). The rules showed that a jockey could claim 1 £5 if he won and £3 if he lost, unless any previous agreement had been made. Witness, continuing, said ho had to reduco himself nice or ten pounds for these races. 1 One of the races he rode was a hurdle race. 1 To Mr Hamarsley :He made no arrange- [ ment with tho defendants. Ho first claimed his fees when he sent them a summons. He . paid all bis expenses to the races. A jockey 1 never pays his own expenses. He never rode 1 a horse for the defendants before the time m r question. , He Baid ho owed the defendants something, . but didn't know the amount because he had > never had an account from them. They . never asked him to look m the books to sco 1 the amount. In answer to Mr Raymond, be said ho had been a jockey for about fourteen years. Part of the time m Australia and ; Tasmania. [ This closed the case for the plaintiff. The Court adjourned for lunch till 2 . o'clock. On resuming, Mr Hamersloy called Philip j Stock, who deposed that he was one of the j defendants m this case. He gave plaintiff a . situation as groom. Ho also rode for witness I m tho Albury Races. Ihe value of one of tho I stakes was £10, and the other £12. Ho paid 1 all his expenses at the races and while ho.was , there. He had to put a man m his place m i the stable, who had to be paid. If a jockey [ winß a race, it is the option of tho employor as 1 to how much ho shall give him ; if he 1 looses he gets nothing. He (plaintiff) never OBked witness for the fees. When he left I witness' employ, ho owed tho amount sued . for, viz., £12. Witness asked him for it, and he said he was going to do harvesting and I would pay when ho came back. Witness , heard nothing of the fees until ho was sued , for them. Plaintiff made no claim for riding tho horses. Witnees had had experience m ' these matters, and had never paid before. , To Mr Raymond :Ho engaged plaintiff as a groom, to attead to the livery stables. He could not say whether ho had the racehorse then or not. Ho swore positively that he never paid for losing v mounts." He know plaintiff had to "wasto" for these races. Witness had a man named Winkler engaged as groom before the plaintiff. To the Bench : When plaintiff loft ho . made no claim for riding ; neither did he make any objection to riding tho horses. C. A. Jefforson employed men as grooms, who had also ridden for him. When boys , ride he paid their expenses. If they lose tho 1 raco thoy get nothing ; if they win they get payment m proportion to the amount of the stakes. This had always been his custom. To Mr Raymond : Ho called them boys, ■ but ho did not know their age. If he employed experienced jockeys ho paid them for losing. The horsca he had wero kept for racing, and tho boys ho kept rode and looked after tho horses. F. W. Cook, Secretary to tho South Canter--1 bury Jockey Club, 6aid he would not pay anything for a losing mount. Ho thought a jockey riding m a hurdle race would be entitled to some fee. John Hammond repeated tho evidence as to not paying for losing mounts, adding that ho had as many as nine horses m his 1 stable at once, and when he employed jockeys they knew the horses were there and had to be looked after. K. Blackmoro said he had claimed losing " mounts," but had not got them. To Mr Raymond : Ho had been at Beveml stables. He had no nrrangoment with ; Hobbs'. "When he first went to Hobbs' they had no racehorses. He entered tho stable with a view of riding tho horses and grooming them. This was the caso. Counsel on both sides addressed tho Bench at considerable length, going over the evidence enumerated by tho witnesses, and ■ quoting from authorities m support of their contention. The Magistrate, m giving judgment, said that it was his impression that no arrange- . ment had been made about tho plaintiff riding as a jockey. It appeared that ho rodo sovenU horses and charged £3 3s for each race j this being the fee for a losing mount. If a groom ehoacs to go ho gets his oxpensos paid j if he wins he gets a remuneration ; if he loses he get 3 nothing. Judgment would bo entered up for the defendant. Tho Court then rose.