CIVIL SIDE.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2068, 20 August 1875, Page 2

CIVIL SIDE.

Out of a ik't of twenty cases twelve were either withdrawn or settled out of Coiirt. : ,

Uhd^pe^ded Cases

Bobert Turner v. John Power. —Cash lent, £1 19s. Defendant acknowledged the debt, but stated liis inability to pay at present. Judgment for plaintiff with COStS. . . ; ■-.-...:.

J. Henshaw v. Vanguard G-.M. Co.— Goods, £22 4s lOd. There was no appearance on betalf of the Vanguard G.M. Co. His Worship told Mr Renshaw he would have to get a certificate of incorporation of the company, when he would give judgment in his favor. P. Warren v. J. Norton.—Account stated, £4 3s 6d. Judgment by confession of plaintiff in person, with costs.

R. Maginn y. Eogarty.—Fcr goods, £29 Os Gd. Judgment for plaintiff by confession with costs.

Defended Cases. j.' tv. adlam v. hestey: smith.

Claim—Goods, £22 9s 3d. Defendant stated he owed part of the money, but demurred to two items in the account. These were some potatoes which he stated were bad and had been returned, and twelve bags which he alleged he had never received. Plaintiff allowed the return of the potatoes which he had received after his account had been made out.

Judgment for plaintiff £20 Is 6d, and COStS. - . :. .

Mr Tyler applied for time to be. allowed Smith as he had abundant to pay his creditors 2Cs in the pound if time* were granted him. Warrant of execution delayed for the present. S. H. BTTENINGHAM V. HENRY SMITH. Goods, £5 10s, part admitted and part demurred to, defendant stating he never had goods for which there was thirteen shillings against him for freight. Mr Burningham was represented by his Agent who having : no authority from his employer in writing, His Worship | was unable to hear the case. Mr Burningham however subsequently appeared himself, ho stated he did not know anything about the case, and Mr Macky, his ageflt, stated he could not tell whether defendant had goods or not unless he referred to his book. Having referred to his books aud read the items and stated the charges agreed on for freight, judgement was given for plaintiff, with costs. O. GEANT V. E. HALE. Claim, wages £7. Mr Tyler for defendant; Mr Macdonald for plaintiff. The defendant stated he was a store- j keeper at Tairua, and employed Grant as cook on recommendation of Mr Soppit, no wages were mentioned. He paid Grant at the rate of £2 a week as well as his board and drinks and lodging. He had paid Grant in all £8, and felt justified in withholding £2 on account of plaintiff's Jeavibg him without notice. By Mr Tyler —Gra.it was drunk three times while in my employ and incapable of doing his work. I paid White, my other . man, £2 > a week.; The : man who supplied Grant's place I paid at the rate of 30s a week, aU he asked for. I got another cook from Auckland and paid him £2 a week.

Obadiah Grant said he was engaged on the offer of Hale at 10s a day. He did the cooking and superintended the baking. He left the place because Mr Hale told him to dear' out. JVjr Hale offered him £2 14s as the balance due to him for his wages. This he refined as he considered he was entitled to £7 as the balance due to him. He had never worked in the colony under £3 a week. Cross-examined by Mr Tyler: Mr He/.e agreed to give me 10s a day and my bo;.vd and lodging.

John Casey, a baker, said —I have been paid as a baker, either £2 10s a week and my board or £3 5s and find myself. George Lawsom said —I am a baker and cook. The run of wages is £2 10s a week and all found.

Mr Hale, re-called, denied employing Grant as baker, only as cook. He had been in business for seven years, en a large scale, and was accustomed to pay his men £2 10s a week, with a cottage, a loaf and flour. He denied having made any arrangement with Grant for 10s a day. James Andrews said. Grant was employed as a cook. He himself was a cook, and, had acted instead of Grant, for a week. His wages were 35s a week and board. A cook's wages would be from £2 to.£2 5s a week.

James Harrison said he had been working for Mr Hale at 30s a week. £2 a week were the highest wages given for plain cooking.

Mr Tyler, in defence, urged that the wages must be paid in accordance "with t ose given to cooks, and nofc a bakers, tlie plaintiff not.being engaged as baker, r.rtd gave a careful digest of the evidence. Mr Macdonald having replied on the • ..ole case for the plaintiff, and argued afc Grant was employed as baker, His "Worship said, that all the little circumstances seemed to be in Grant's favour, and judgement would be for plaintiff, with costs. JOHN STEPHENS V. «T. THOEPE. Claim, £8 15s. This wa3 also a claim for wages, but had been decided during the hearing of the last case. The Court then rose.