MAGISTERIAL.

Timaru Herald, Volume L, Issue 4860, 4 June 1890, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

TiAHßTJ— Tuesdat, Juno 3. (Before C. A. Wray, Esq., R.M ) OIVIL CIVIL Judgment hy default was givon ia Iho following cases : W. Ogilvie v. A. B. Wuugh 9i fid ; N. Z Clothing Factory Company v. A. B. Wm.gh £2 7s Gd. T. Malun, ciptaiu of tho barqiientino Jessie, v. Alex. White, coal merchant, claim £3 7j, balanco of freight due on n cargo of coil brought from Kewcasllo m Vfnreh last. Mr Wliita for plaintiff Mr Hay for defendant There waß aisn a cross summons for £1 13s for coal short delivered. Mr White said the amount invoked was snnll, but. tho principle was important : Whether chip oanfra or masters wero Io b? charged tho cost of weighing coul delivered from the ship's fide. Defendant bein^ ill m bsd eotdd not attend, but, a? Cr.ptain Malmn wished to Ret away hia evidence waa taken, and the ca£o adjourned. plaintiff produced tho charter parly for the trip, and bill of lading of a cargo of coal. Defendant was consignee of tho coal. Defendant poid £180 10s for freight, but thin did not pay the whole, which should hivo been J6IS3 12i, There was a difference cf. six tonß between Iho weights on the bill of lading, and the delivery weights given by tho weighbridge, of 6 tons, and this shortago it was agreed to divido (at Us per ton). Defendant a'sj deducted £3 7s the cost of weighing the cargo, 67 truckß, by the railway department. Witncas gave delivery nt the ship's sido. Demurred to Uib deduction, saying it was neither customary nor jnst. Had been m the coal trade seven years, and had never heard of tho ship paying for weighing coal on delivery. To Air Hay: At the settlement about the short delivery, Mr Balpb was present, '/ho question of short delivery was quite settled at that interriow, by a debit of 33s to the ship Witness did not ngrfo to allow three tons ss a^uinet the cost of weighing. Did not admit that ho was bound to make allowances for short weight, but did so io this case. Mr Hay quoted from tho charter " freight 9a 6d per ton on weight delivered, or pit certificate, on at charterer's option." Tho case was then adjourned for a fortnight. Fraser v. Butherford Bros., and Hutherford Bros. r. Fra9er. Mr White for plaintiff, Fraac-r, Mr Hay {of defendants. His Worship gavo judgment m this case. The facts seemed to bo that plaintiff, Fraser, was engaged by tha yoar at £120 ft year and found, and served three years and three weeks. After looking up tho easea quoted, he came to the conolesion that plaintiff did not como within the rule as to menial or domestic servants, and the contrnct therefore could not be determined by one month's notice or ono month's wages m lieu of notice. There was no specific agreement as to notice.und the ovidenco adduced h&d failed to establish, any custom. Tho evidence r! Mr LoCren morely showed that hio own practice was to agroo to a month's notice on either fide. That was not ovidonco of aciiEtom, nnd thero was evidence of ft contrary kind. The court then had Io iix the damages Io which plaintiff was entitled for dismissal. Under Iho circumstances ho thought plaintiff was entitled to tho amount ho claimed, three months' pay. With regard to tho £3 claimed for travelling cxponsos that seemed a fit matter for special arrangement, but n« thero was no arrangement he could not allotf that item. The claim of £16 5s for board . for three months was also disallowed. As Io the cross-action, tho evidence as to tbo right of defendant Fraßer to (lx the wajzes °f an employeo was conflicting. Do; femlant swore he waa under no restriction nt all. find it appeared Io he qnito within Iho scopo of bis powers to imwifo the employee's wngca. Then tho plaintiffs hid an opportunity to infpect tho books, nnd (ha stttlemcnt of the neeounls botween tho paitiei without any objection being raised on tfiia head, must be taken to bo a ratification. No objection was raised m fact until Fraser w fufctl to neeppt ono month's notice. At to tho item of 30a piid by Fraaor for the travelline oiponses of tro employed this mint be deducted from him. Uo wan not justified m nending to Timaru from Southland for ft man nnd charging his travelling expenses. Judgment would bo given for plaintiff Frnser for £30 ]5i with costs £5 2s and for Bullierford Bros. £1 10a and costs HI.