RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Manawatu Times, Volume III, Issue 77, 24 September 1879, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, September 19. [Bebobb R. Ward, Esq., R.M.] There was no criminal business before the Court. . orvi- oases. In the case of J. Ay Houguez v. "W. H. Harris, Mr. Hawkins who appeared for the defendant, stated that the plaintiff/ who was m Wellington was desirous of having the ease adjourned until next sitting day. Adjournment granted, with professional 'costs. ! 'F. Keene v. W. Whisker.— Claim, £3 for j^p^r weeks wages, and pne week m lieu of 'no^ice^nofc given. ■ MfA Hawkins, who appeared for the defendant; stated that the particulars were so meagre, no dates having been given, that he must ask .for an adjournment. • _.Js Worsqip thought the claim could he amended" as far 1 as. regarded the particulars', and said that 1 he would hear the ease m the afternoon to give thVpjaintiff time to amend. Stanley H. Carr.'-v J» R. Davies.— Claim ' £5. . ' _?his was an action to. recover the sum of £5j the amount of-' a' cheque given by the defendant to plaintiff to binda bargain, the payment of .'which had been subsequently stopped by i(le defendant. ""' "* "" ' 4 " •■;'" Mr. Haw'j^'ns appeared for the plaintiffy and Mr. Stai&e for the defendant. • ,, " v ~ From the evidence it appeared that defendant had entered into negotiation^ for.. Ihe purchase of the plaintiff's share m the Cheltenham saw-mill, &c, and had given the cheque, m the plaintiff's abse, ace, tp his .partner3_£r. Cross, to be. given to plaintiff ji.f/he'V'cepted defendants terms. Plaintif. •ahd his* partner subsequently went over to j defendant's house, where, the contract was 'idrawn up and the cheque was afterwards jhanded over'to the plaintiff, who paid it into, •his account at the bank, it was thereupon 'endorsed^ payment, stopped," For the defence, evidence, was given to the following effect, namely, that plaintiff and his partner' eaeli held. Bepar^te v 'but contiguous sections, tha. while th.i- jilaintpEls loud was unencumY hared that of his' paitner v was mortgaged; and that the mj'l-.stpod partly oii^ach section; The. fact of tiiereyheing a mortgage, the., land of. tHo s 'plaintiff^s partner had _ • npi been represented to the v defendant, who' oh. hearing of it, immediately went oyer to jthe bapk. and stopped * payment/ of / the,. cheque. .. •* ■'*•■- "/'•."" • V His" Worship, after hearing coupseL m j udgment observed that certain mat £er3 had not been represented tp the defendant', and. be therefore thought that he was entitled to stop ■ the 'cheque. He should give judgment for the defendant, with cpsts.

J. C. Thompson v. -J. Ash worth. — Claim, £10. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed and costs,- £3 to be paid at the end of the first month and. the balance at -the end of the third month. The restriction to be removed m case of non-payment. J. A. Houguez v. M. Bertram. — Claim, £24 10s. Adjourned till next court day. D. R. Lewe?s v. T. Huckstep. — Claim, £9 18s. 4d. Mr. Staite appeared for plaintiff. His Worship stated that the (Constable had informed him that it was within his knowledge that the defendant was se? riou9ly ill. Case adjourned to next Court day. Francis Keene v. W. Whisker .— Claim, £3. Ms. Hawkins appeared for the. defendant. The claim was for four weeks' wages at 125., and one. week m J'teu of notice. F..'om the evidence it appeared that plaintiff was engaged by the defendant on sth August and discharged on the 30th, ou account of fvequent complaints having been made, of his negligence and impudence to customers. Mr. Hawkins contended that the plaintiff, owing to his misconduct, had forfe-ted all claim to wages, the engagement he»ng a monthly one, and the boy having had to he dismissed before he had completed bis flvsfc month, and quoted " Chitty on Contracts " m supporj of- his argument. His WoiViiip, m giving judgment, said that he found m this case the evidence conflicting as to whether, the engagement was a monthly or weekly one. Any misconduct the boy had been guilty of had, been'condoned by the. plaintiff- retaining. him m his employ after, being complained of. He should therefore give judgment for, plaintiff•for three weeks' wages— £l l6s. This concluded the business before, the Court. -, . '