R.M. Court.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume III, Issue 435, 29 March 1890, Page 3

R.M. Court.

THURSDAY. [Before Messrs Tucker and Lucas, J.P.’s.] A wages dispute. Gbanoe v. Arnaboldi, claim £1 10s. Mr DeLautour appeared for defendant. The plaintiff gave evidence that he had been engaged in Auckland to enter into the defendant's service as a journeyman blacksmith. It was customary in such cases for the employee to stay six months, and in such case the employer would be at the cost of the passage money. If the employee left of bis own accord within the time stated he would be compelled to pay his own passage. Some complaints had arisen as to the work done by the plaintiff, with the result that he was given a fortnight's notice. A question then arose as to who should pay the passage money from Auckland. The plaintiff refused to pay, and the defendant would not give the plaintiff the whole of his wages, £4 10s. The plaintiff alleged that after this dispute the defendant agreed to waive the matter of the passage money and offered him the money, and at the same time asking him to sign the receipt, which was fot £4los. Under the assumption that the full amount was there he did so, but on counting it he found that there was only ; £3. He then threatened to sue for the balance, which he now did.

On his part the defendant stated that it had been arranged that the passage money should be paid if the plaintiff lemained in his service, but the defendant was compelled to dismiss him on account of their being complaints about the work. The receipt was made out so as to include the £1 10s previously advanced, and the plaintiff was quite aware that he was only getting £3 then. Further evidence was called to show that one person had withdrawn his custom. After consideration the Bench said they would like to give judgment for the plaintiff, but felt they ought to give it tor defendant. Costs of one witness, 7s, were allowed.

ALL ABOUT POUS SHILLINGS. Mrs Menzies, lodging house keeper, sued George Richard Rogers, Club steward, for 4a on balance of account, and £3 12s for four weeks' board. Mr Day appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Chrisp for defendant. The defendant had paid £3 8s into Court. The plaintiff gave evidence to show that she had given defendant a clear receipt up to a certain date. There had however been four shillings which she had not received because the defendant had not sufficient loose change. She asked him for the money subsequently, but he complained that he was “broke.” He subsequently left her place owing a month's board, ostensibly on the ground that he had a row with one of the boarders, but really (witness believed) because defendant had purchased a £44 piano, which he was unable to get upstairs, and therefore he had looked for a place which would suit the piano as well as himself. Mr Chrisp produced the receipts signed by the plaintiff, which he said were inconsistent with her story, and asked for a nonsuit. The Bench agreed with Mr Chrisp so far as the balance cf account was con cerned, but finding that the defendant had been boarding by the week, and that the amount paid in did not include 4 full weeks, they gave judgment for the difference, four shillings and costs six shillings. he wanted his clothes. Another action in which the parties in the last case were reversed, next occupied their Worships’ attention. George Richard Rogers sued Mrs Menzies for the return of certain articles, inclusive of white shirts, frilled pillowslips, boot brushes, and various other articles which make up the wardrobe of the bachelor of the period. After the lodger and his landlady had fallen out, it appears that the latter refused to hand over the former’s clothes ; the plaintiff says she chased him out with a broomstick; the defendant says she told him she hadn’t time to look for the clothes, and suggested that he should bring a constable to find them. She explained she did this because she was busy getting dinner ready, and if dinner had been late she could not have very well excused herself to her exasperated boarders on the ground that she had been compelled to attend forthwith to the desires of the plaintiff. At any rate she denied having all the articles mentioned, but she had gathered up all she could find, and they were now in Court. Mr Day, her solicitor, appeared anxious to exhibit them to the Bench, but Mr Chrisp said it wasn’t necessary, and their Worships did not desire to expose the treasures of a bachelor to the impious eyes of the crowd in Court. The plaintiff likewise alleged that his landlady had been in the habit of using his sheets on other people’s beds. He knew this because he had seen them, and he had never given any authority to nee them. He was able to recognise his own things from the fact that they were of a superior kind to those in use, and besides the landlady had no frills on hers. It appears that the parties had, on one occasion, had a deal, in which the plaintiff disposed of all his surplus Btook, and, so the defendant alleged, threw some things he now claimed into the bargain. After evidence had been taken pro and con— all the witnesses werejof the feminine persuasion — in fact the plaintiff, with the exception of the lawyers, was the only man in it—their Worships decided to nonsuit the plaintiff. Then they explained that they gave judgment for plaintiff as to the things in Court—including a mirror which plaintiff had not claimed —and would nonsuit as to the remainder. An argument ensued as to costa, and it waa virtually decided that each party pay their own costs.