TEMUKA-MONDAY, JUNE 4th.

Timaru Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 4256, 5 June 1888, Page 4

TEMUKA-MONDAY, JUNE 4th.

CIVIL CASES. C. Diggin v. Malarky, claim £3, for harvest work and gorse cutting and grubbing. The defendant put m a set off for rent of a house which the plaintiff had occupied. The evidence was very conflicting, and his Worship considered that one »="""' m," 8 l»t fairly bo put against the other, and gave judgment for the defendant. (3. Boltonv. B. Hombrook, claim £5 13s Bd. Judgment for the amouDt claimed and costs. E. Ptlbrow 7. Tom Davia, claim £1 12» Sd. There was a set off of 12a. The plaintiff stated that he had disposed of a quantity of grass seed at the request of the defendant, taking considerable trouble over the matter, and that the defendant had agreed to accept the price, and had then sold the grass seed elsewhere. The defendant awore that he had not agreed to accept the price offered. His Worship was of opinion that the plaintiff had been put to trouble, and was justly entitled to the amount claimed minus the Bet off. Judgment was given accordingly. T. Morris t. M. Quinn, claim £5. Mr Hay for the plaintiff, and Mr for the defendant. The claim was for balance of wages withheld by the defendant, £1 for a week's wages m lieu of notice, and SA value of a sheep dog of which the plaintiff had retained possession. M. Quinn stated that on Sunday, February 19th, be went down early m the morning to his farm at Milford and there found one of his horses with the saddle on. Morris told him ho had just ridden m from Temuka; he replied that he objected to thi3 kind of treatment for his horses, and told him m future he would not have his horses ridden to Temuka except on bis own business. Morris told him that after the years he had been with him he thought he waa entitled ta the use of a horse. On the following Thursday hi 3 son told him that Morris intended to leave on the following Saturday. It was the middle of harvest, and he decided to deduct £1 of his wages as he had not given notiea. When he told him his intention, Morris Baid he could do bo, he did not care so much for £1. Next beard that he had left. Five or six weeks afterwards he came for the money. Asked him if the dog waa outside when he said the dog was his. Told him £4 would be deducted, or if he returned tho dog, would pay him m full. He then said he would summons. To Mr Aspinall : Did not see Morris after he left. He waa engaged as a general hand. To Mr Hay : Morris has been four or five years on the farm. He had a dog which was shot. .Never told him would give him a pup. When the dog was a pup took it to the farm, but never stated the dog was to be his property. Never intended it for Morris. May have used strong language when I found the horse saddled. Morris did not give any intimation that he intended to leave. I did not tell him that notice given on Sunday was illegal because I did not consider it to be so. He said I could keep the £1. The dog was not mentioned daring the conversation becauso I did not think he claimed it, but supposed it had followed him. John Quinn gave evidence that tbe dog had been given to him as a pup. It was worth £i. He had asked Morris for the dog, when he claimed it as his. Frederick Morris deposed that he had been m Quinn'a employment for eight years. On Febrnary 18th had ridden into Temuka and tied the horse to a fence, and it had slipped the bridle and got away ; had looked for it and waa told it had been found and taken to Story's stable. The next morning had come down at 6 o'clock, paid for tho stabling and returned to the farm. About 10 minutes after Quinn hid come down. Ho had never previously objected to the horse being used. Said he would not have his horses hawked about thu town. I swear I told him I would leave on Saturday night. The following Thursday when I was at his house with mutton he came out and said he should not take that notice as sufficient. Did not mention the dog. About ih years ago I had a dog ahot j Quinn told me I could have a pup he had at tbe house, and he brought it down. I took it and thanked him for it. I hate trained, registered, and kept it. Quinn never claimed the dog until I went for my wages. Tho present value of the dog is £2 10s. To Mr Aspinall : When I first went to Milford I had not a dog. One was lent to me. Ido not remember telling Quinn the dog was registered. His Worship said the evidence was very conflicting. He would give judgment for the plaintiff for tho £1, as ho considered that notice had been given. With regard to the dog the cvitlence of the defendant was clear, and ho would give judgment for the defendane for tho value of the dog, £4. Aa regarded tho registration tho defendant would have to pay 10s for tbe registration m 1887. The dog would be retained by the plaintiff. The Court then rose.