RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Westport Times, Volume II, Issue 301, 18 July 1868, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, July 17. (Before J. Giles Esqr., E.M.) I/A.BCENY. Thompson Scott, was charged with stealing four half crowns, the property of John Smith. The prisoner was brought up in custody of a warder of the gaol, as he was undergoing sentence at the time of the alleged robbery. John Smith said—l am a labouring man. The prisoner was brought down yesterday to the tent where I was sleeping, in charge of a constable. The tent is prisoners. I had four half crowns in a little chamois bag whicli was underneath my shoulders. I was lying down at the time ; I had to get up as the bedding was the prisoner's, and he rolled it up to take it away. After he had gone Tmissed the money. Ido not believe he intended to take the money, but think he took it by accident. I knew before. After I missed the money I went up and asked about my money. I had had the bag nine months, and know it. I think that prisoner might have thought it his own money, for sometimes he is given to drink, and puts money away. By prisoner—Tou told me get up and take what I had. I have been in the tent eight or nine days. I never took any thing from the tent that I did not bring back again ; I have borrowed things of you and returned them.

Constable Neville proved that he went with prisoner on the morning in question to the tent, in order to allow the prisoner—who is undergoing sentence —to remove his clothes, and other things ; prisoner did so and took then away. About one hour afterwards, prosecutor came and told him that prisoner had taken away the money and that he would know the bag again. Witness went over to the gaol and warder Coulahan called prisoner searched him and found the money. James Coulahan warder at the gaol corroborated the previous witness as to searching the prisoner and finding a bag containing four half crowns on him as described. In reply to prisoner, witness said that the prosecutor had done a month in gaol. Prisoner in defence, said, that he told prisoner to take his things away, and on finding the bag with the money, thought it was his, and that it was some he had lost. The Magistrate said this was a very clear case, aud he should sentence the prisoner to six months imprisonment with hard labour, from the present time. This would in effect be only three months for this offence as prisoner had very nearly three months to serve on another charge. CIVIL CASES H Wright v. Eeid and Curie: — Mr Tyler for the defendants. This was an action to recover <£2o under circumstances detailed in the plaintiff's evidence. Plaintiff said—On Saturday the 20th of Tune I met Mr Eeid and he asked

j m« if £ would undertake the editorship of the Eoenintj Star, and J consented to do so- Mr Eeid saying thet he could not give me a definite answer at that time as his brother had had the offer but had not made up his mind whether lie would take it or not. lie added that the salary would be £G per week ; subsequently he told me that his brother had declined -the, position and that I had better begin at once. Mr Curie was present, aud Mr Iteid said E had better make arraugments with Mr Curie, as was going away for soma time. Mr Curie said as things were dull they could only give £5 per week, if that would suit me.- I agreed to this on a promise of advance if things got better, and tins was ar ■ ranged. I worked the whole of tint week, and commenced the next. On Wednesday of the second week, Mr lieid's brother returned. Mrlioid then told mo it was probable that Mr Curio would make arrangements with his brother to stop, and if so, T should take my own time to leave, as it was not likely that I should be sent away at a moments notice. Mr Curie told me on the Thursday following, that he hadengeged Mr A. Jteid as editor of the Star, and on the Friday asked me if it would be convenient for meto leave the next (Saturday) night. I objected' to the notice as being sudden, and he said he would see about it, and make arrangements the next day. On that day (Saturday) after the paper went to press, Mr Curie called me in to me my wages and said, as 1 had had short notice and they would not require my services any longer, he would give me £1 in lieu ofthe proper notice. I refused the £l, and said, give me my salary that is all I want now. On Monday morning I called and asked for £lO for two weeks salary, the usual notice in the printing trade. "With reference to the special damages, I was holding a situation at the time at G-reymouth and I threw it up in order to take this short engagement whenllostbotb. There is also,the general damage that a short engagement does to any one, people believing that it was through some fault of mine that I left the Star office.

By Mr Tyler—No one was present at the lirst conversation but Mr Reid and myself. My appointment depended on whether Mr A. Reid accepted the editorship or not, but on the Monday he told me definitely that his brother would not remain, but would resume his engagement in the Otacjo Times. On the whole I worked a fortnight (a letter from Mr Reid was put in in which it was stated that a sum of £3 had been paid). Ihis was an entirely private matter between Mr Reid and myself, for which he has an 1.0. U. At that time Mr Reid said it was possible or probable that Mr A. Reid would remain. I was engaged at a weekly salary. On settling Mr Curie wished to let that be a portion of my salary. That has nothing to do with the case. Mr Curie wished to stop it, as it was entered as salary to their joint account. I did not demand notice at the time, but did on the Monday when I took out the summons. Mr Curie, on the Saturday, waived the claim for £3, and gave me £5. They did not engage me for a time, but told me it was likely to be a permanent situation. They did not induce me to leave my former situation. By the Magistrate—Mr Reid holds my lOU for £3. It was partly lent on a contingency, as there was £7 due to me for getting up a petition against Mr Kynnersley. David Curie, one of the defendants, was called by the plaintiff to prove the engagement, and the custom of the trade in reference to notice, witness stating that one week was the customary term. By Mr Tyler—lt was understood that if Mr A. Reid came back, he was to betheeditor. Wtness then entered into an explanation of the settlement referred to by plaintiff, and said that plaintiff had agreed to take £5 to settle matters betweeu them. "When plaintiff demanded £lO for short notice, he made no demand for damages. If plaintiff had asked for a week's notice he could have had it, and if he liked to come into the office at once he could do so, and work the week out.

Mr A. Reid was called by the plaintiff, but proved nothing of importance. In reply to Mr Tyler, the witness said he had been engaged on the press for twenty years, and never heard of a fortnight's notice being given when one was engaged weekly. His situation at the Otago Daily Times was still open. Mr Tyler in defence submitted that defendant's own actions formed a waiver of notice, which, as proved by plaintiff's own witness, could not

•exceed a week in any case, aud had been fully given. Under the circumstances he moved for a nonsuit. The Magistrate did not think there were sufficient grounds for a nonsuit. Mr Tyler then called James Curie, who said that plaintiff had agreed to take the £5 paid in settlement of all demands. The Magistrate dism'ssed the idea of damages, the whole question was as to one week's wages. He thought •clearly that he was entitled to that, beyond what had been paid. The remaining point was in reference to the £3, and as it had been sworn positively that an IOU had been given, there must have been something special about it. He should therefore give a verdict for £5 aud costs.