MAGISTERIAL

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2203, 29 May 1908, Page 1

MAGISTERIAL

THURSDAY, MAY 27, 1908. (Before Mr. W. A. Barton, S.M.)

A RESTAURANT KEEPER’S CLAIM.

William Henry Douglas, restaurantkeeper, proceeded against two of his employees, Mollie O’Connor and Ellen Smith, for alleged breach of engagement. He claimed £1 10s in the case of the. former, and £2 in that of the latter.

Air. G. H. Lysnar appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, and the defendants were represented by Mr. T. Alston Coleman. . -

The case was brought by the plaintiff as a test, to determine the liability of an employee who leaves employment without giving notice, in lieu thereof to pay the amount of a week s salary. Plaintiff, giving evidence, stated that he had engaged the defendants on May 6th, at £1 10s and £2 per week respectively. Both defendants left the following morning without giving notice or making any complaint.

It was alleged for the defence that the defendants told tho plaintiff that they were unable to remain owing to tho nature of the surroundings. Several of the plaintiff’s employees gave evidence that the premises were perfectly clean. Both counsel having addressed the Court,

His Worship, in giving judgment, said that servants were not justified in leaving their employers so hurriedly, except under exceptional circumstances. In the present case, however, he was satisfied that they had good reason to leave as they had. Judgment would be for the defendants, with costs. 'CLAIM AGAINST A NATIVE. August Zenker (Mr. H. Bright) proceeded against Te RawTni (Mr. T. A. Coleman) for the recovery of £1 10s, the value of a sack of potatoes. The goods were alleged to have been obtained by defendant from the plaintiff. Defendant had stated that they were for a Mr. Tulloch, but he (Mr. Tulloch) had denied liability. Defendant denied that ho had asked for the potatoes to be charged to Mr. Tulloch, but to another native named Tutahi.

His Worship gave judgment for the amount claimed, with £2 2s costs.

. A PECULIAR CLAIM. Robert Sinton (Mr. G. Stock) proceeded against H. E. Kent (Mr. Blair) to recover the sum of £9 7s Del, being interest at the rate of £lO per centum per annum, computed at from the Ist. day of January, 1905, to the Ist day of May, 1908, upon the sum of £2B 2s 6d, being half the present value of a fence erected by the plaintiff upon the boundarv of the road between the property of the plaintiff and the property of the defendant at Tiniroto, and of which fence the defendant had availed himself. .

Mr. Stock, in opening the case, stated that the case was brought under section 23, sub-section 1. of the Fencing Act, 1895. The parties were neighbors at Tiniroto, their properties being separated by a road. They both had fences •alon£ s dhe road, but that on defendant’s side was practically 'useless. Consequently, he took advantage of defendant’s fence to keep his stock from straying. Robert Sinton, plaintiff, said that his fence was as good a fence as could be erected, and had always been kept in good condition. His boundary ran parallel with the road for about 100 chains. Defendant’s fence was practically useless, and had been badly erected. At the conclusion of plaintiff’s evi-» deuce the Court adjourned until this morning.