MAGISTERIAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2187, 17 September 1907, Page 1

MAGISTERIAL.

MONDAY?' SEPTEMBER f 16. (Before Mr.' W. A. Barton, S.M.) 1 ‘pDrunkeilii'ess?—A-first offender was „dealt" with-;in the - usual manner.— ralias'Peter King, , was charged with being'found drunk 1 and was convicted and fined 20s, and'costs 2s, in de-' fault 4 days’ imprisonment.

Alleged Horse-stealing.—Charles Single was charged’’ with’ stealing a bay gelding, the property" of John T. Cassidy Maddern conducted the prosecution - ,-and—Mr. Stock appeared for the accused.—-After hearing the fevidence"'His Worship asked the accused if lie had anything to say, and he stated that lie liadlpurchased the ' horse' from Cassidy for £l2,'and' had'paid 30s on account. He asked •'Cassidy if he could 1 sell the ’ horse hand Cassidy replied ‘that

he conld. Accused • went to the Bridge .Hotel,. -Matawhero, and stayed there all night. On the following mornihg 'accused had' mounted! the horse with the intention of riding to Mahia, and when a few chains from the Hotel;' a man named- O’Rourke called him back and offered him £4 and his horse in exchange for the one accused'was riding. He refused the offer-, and then O’Rourke 'said rthat he would toss him 'whether 'ho would givo him '£4 'Or £5 to boot. ' Accused agreed to this,- and O’Rourke won the toss, taking- the horse. ! Accused was committed 'to -stand' liis trial 'at the’ next sitting of the Supremo Court.

Alleged Wrongful Dismissal.—The case of John Percival Taylor v. Charles’ Taylor,' claim for £4B;''for alleged wrongful dismissal, was also heal'd.— Mr. E. H. Mann appeared for plaintiff and Mr. T. A. Coleman for defendant—John Percival : Taylor ’ deposed that he was a polisher by trade '•arid *applißd*ti6 : the defendant for cm■ployment. Ho was" then residing in Auckland. - In answer to a telegram from the ■ defendant guaranteeing! him employment for six months, witness came to Gisborne on June 20thi He worked- for 'ls 3d /an'hour, and for about three weeks worked overtime at the same rate.* At the end of the three weeks defendant' told witness riot to work overtime as he had no ■jorim-to store the furriitureydiis ’shop -leing! full. - - Witness < then wedt to work' - at defendant’s new shop in Mf cky Logan’s building, and lie told defendant that he would not work overtime at Is 3d per hour, and risked him if he was aware that by so doing they were both liable to be fined for a breach of the award. Defendant replied that there waß no award, no union, no anything. He also - told witness that lie could go up to the ■shop and get his money. On the following day at noon witness was-paid in full.—William Edward Pittaway," upholsterer, in the employ of defendant, Seposed that he asked the defendant what the trouble was (with the plaintiff, to which he had replied that he had given liim the sack as he wanted more money for overtime. —Charles Taylor, the defendant', deposed that the plaintiff had commenced working for him on June 18. The wages were fixed at Is 3d an hour. Witness told the plaintiff that - he could work overtime if he liked at the same rate, and-the plaintiff had done so for about three weeks, when the witness had found it necessary to stop him, as there was no more -room for the furniture, the shop being overstocked. On August" 27tli 1 the plaintiff had been sent down to MacIcy; ; Logan’s to/doi some - work, 1 and while thero "had* called ”the : witnoss .. and told-him that he wanted ’more

money on that job. Witness roftisod; and snid v 'ho*'oofilU 'roturn’to tlidtop’ shop. PlalHtlff 1 feaid“ lie" woiildk not work any more-—ho would'- come’ and 1 got his money*!--There t was-inofihiffg 5 ’ said ’ about’' ' r Wo!f ship' rosefVed '-his till to-mdirow morning 'at 10 o’ clock, stating It ha t the evidence was of such a conflict-' ing“‘nal;tlf'o' <; thW* l he'‘\yoilld' go‘ throughliis notes • again•.to bare-' fully' l sift- the Vnattor. • ’;