R.M COURT WOODVILLE.

Woodville Examiner, Volume 3, Issue 219, 11 December 1885, Page 3

R.M COURT WOODVILLE.

Friday, December 11th 1885. i (Before Captain Preece, R.M.) j CHARGE OF DRUNKENNESS. M. Dowd was charged by the police with being drunkon the 23rd of November. J Constable Motley staled that the man , was not actually drunk in Woodvillo, but ( had taken drink with him to Mata-iwi, and that a disturbance had occurred there j in consequence. The R.M. dismissed the case, as there was no proof of defendant being drunk. Civil. ■William Isles v. J. Taggat.—Claim of 15 Is, balance of account for board and lodging. Mr Burnett appeared tor plaintiff, for whom judgment was given. Same v. A. W. Malcolm. —Claim of j£l2 8s for board and lodging and baker’s account. Mr Burnett for plaintiff, for whom judgment was given. A. Peters v. Edward Symons. —Claim £1 12s 6d, Judgment for plaintiff. Archibald Campbell v. Drummond L. Frasi.—Claim of £ls 17a 2d for wages. Messrs Morison and Burkett for the defendant Drummond, who repudiated all liability. From plaintiffs evidence it seems that he was employed by Frasi, and also put up a cottage for himself, but all the timber was used in Frasi’s cottage. There was a set —off which formed the basis of cross-action. The item for timber in that set-off he repudiated ; all the timber was used in Frasi’s cottage. Drummond’s name was included because he was one of the firm. Mr Burnett cross-examined the witness at a considerable length. A witness named Klein gave evidence, and in answer to Mr Morison's crossexamination, he said plaintiff was working for Frasi’s not for Drummond. Frasi told him that plaintiffs wages were LI a week, not 7 a per day. This was plaintiffs case. Frasi’s evidence, taken at Masterton, •was read, in which he stated that he engaged plaintiff as surveyor’s labourer’s at £1 per week. With regard to the timber, plaintiff had asked him to order—while he was ordering for himself—some timber to build a whare. The timber account was 119, half of which is owing by plaintiff. There were several items of cash, &0., and in the whole account he * considered plaintiff owed him £3 3s. T. Drummond, examined by Mr Burnett, stated that he was not in partnership with Frasi, and never had been. The accounts were solely between Frasi and plaintiff The cross-action (116 10s s|d) was then taken, and Mr Morison asked for a non-suit. The R. M. gave judgment in the first case for plaintiff, as against Frasi for 17 2s 4d; 11 10a witness’s expenses, and 11 4b costs, the Court considering plaintiff Was only entitled to wages at the rate of 11 per week. As against Drummond a non-suit was entered, with solicitor’s fee HI Is. In the cross-action judgment was given for defendant without costs, the items (except that for timber), being covered in the first case. Campbell to have no claim to the timber. Dawson v. Drummond & Frasi—Claim of 120 4s, Messrs Morison & Burnett for defendant, Frasi, confessed the debt, and judgment for amount claimed was given against Frasi. A non-suit was entered up as against defendant Drummond, and his solicitor’s costs were allowed. Miller v. Drummond & Frasi-Claim 14 14s Bd. Messrs Morison & Burnett for defendant; Mr Fiorance for plaintiff. Judgment confessed by Frasi against whom judgment was given with costs and solicitor’s fee ; non-suit as against Drummond, with solicitor’s fee JOs 6d. Hfnry Hutt v. Collis.—Claim of L 7 15s fid f>r LushfeUing. Mr Fiorance appeared for defendant. Plaintiff stated that he was engaged by defendant to fell bush at 25s per week, and found. Defendant asserted that the agreement was for the felling of 40 acres, and the wages were to be LI a week and found. Plaintiff left at a moment’s notice after foiling about 12 acres. Judgment was given for plaintiff for amount claimed, less one weeks’ wages in lieu of notice. Costs 19s. Two months allowed to pay the ami unt. M. Tracey v. Edward Foley.—Claim of 13 cosh lent and goods supplied. Messrs Morison and Burnett appealed for defendant. Mr Burnett stated that the defence was that the case had already been adjudicated upon at tho last Court in an action between the parties when this claim was included m the settlement. The case was adjourned till next Court day.