Lists (None yet)

Login to create lists

Tagged (None yet)

Add Tags

Comments (None yet)

Add New Comment

No corrections yet

LOCAL COUnRT PERJ'H. TBURISDAY, OCT, 29Ta. RADELL BOS., Y. FRED, PLATT, Claim £2 12s. money due. There was n, appearance on the part of the defendant Judgment with costs. CLAIRKE V. C. PUR5SIDE. Claim £4 2s. 9d. This was for goods sold and delivered by Mrs. Clarke, a storekeeper, to Mrs. C. Burnside, no appearance. Mr. Clarke, tile son of tile plaintiff, proved the debt. Mr. la) nee appeared for the plaintiff Judgment with costs. GUTHRIE V. REDFERN. Claim £2 ls. Defendant was called but tl.ere was no appearance. Plaintiff proved tbedebt. Judlgment with costs. FoUClln&RD v. STEVENS, Claim £9. Defendant's name was called, but hedid not answer. Judgment for tle emOunt with costs. EfiEdEtStbfc . BLOOm1E. Claim £6. No appearance, pereonal ser uict of summons in Perth was profed, The account was £5 10s. but in August last, thedcfendant had agreed to pay 10s. inter est. Jedgosent for £5 is. a?ud costs. HENDERSON V. ABHWELL. Claim £315s. for clothing. There was no appearance on the part of defendant. Ser vice of summone was proved. Judgment for the amount claimed, and costs. J. LIDD)ELOW V. J GALLOP. Claim £4 1Us. The defendant did not ap pear. This was a claim formeat sold by the plaintiff to the defendant. The money was due and be had the meat. Judgment for the amount claimed with costs. W.A.M. Co. v. ASHWELL. Claim £17s.2d. Mr. Parker onthe part of the W. A. Matnufacturing Co. called Wil. liam Hall, a clerk in the Company's service, who proted the debt. Judgment with costB. tW; GRAY 'r. ~YALLIS. Claim £15 11a. Mr Burnside appear ed for the plaintiff. Upon the name of plain. tiff and defendant being called, there wad no answer case struck out. E. HUGrEe v. OSBORNE. Claim £5. Defendant said he had paid £8 into Court, all he considered due. The plaintiff claimed £5. He was 6 days in the slaughter house, and 13 days on the road, being engaged by broken periods. Had ap plied for payment, but this Mr. Osborne re fused to do. In reply to Mr. Osborne, plain tiff asked defendant if he had not been em ployed by Jones. He replied that he had not. That ~l. Osborne had agreed to pay him Ss. per day and rations, together with horse, saddle and bridle. This was what he had given before when-going to Dandaragan. Defendant said his agreement was Ss. per day with rations, horse and bridle, the same as he bad paid the man in charge of the cat. tlie. Had never paid the lad more thtn Ss. pet day. Jones is at Dand:ragan. They drive up one lot of cattle and bring dovn another. Case adjourned until next court day untJl the presence of Peter Jones be ob tained

CHRISTIE v. P. CUNNINGHAM. Claim £1 lua. gdods sold and delivered J. S. Christie, the plaintiff raid that on the 5th Irch he had sold a pair of shoes fo± 12s. They had been charged 15s. def-nd ant had paid £1 7s. into Court. Upon being sworn,he said he bought trowsers for 15s.and shoes for 12s. Judgment for plaintiff with. out costs. MAREWEtLL ?., F. STEVENs Claim £15 4s. 6d. Mir. Blandy apl eared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Haynes for the defendant, This was a claim for wages due for work done during last year. The defendant pleaded payment by ratidns. William Richard Markwell upon being sworn said the claim was due and. had not been paid.An account had net been rendered By Mr. Haynes :Claimed £15 Is 9d. Did not give credit for £4 13s 3d. Did not authorise his father to receive goods or rat ions in his name. Never had a pass book from Forbes or any one else. F. Stevens the defendant, said the plaintiff was his clerk in 1884. He issued stores by direction of the plaintiff to his father, and entries were made thereof in the books, accounts being settled between them when he left. Alexander Forbes said Markwell claimed his son's wages and they were paid to him. Judgment far defendant with costs. BOLarES v. STEIN ClaiS, £22 1ls. Mr. Burnmsidefor plaintiff, Mr. G. Patkerfor defendant, Plaintiff did not appear; his solicitor asking a post ponement. His Worship struck the case out with costs against the plaintiff. STEIN V. SAMSON & SoN Claim £11 15s id. Mr. G. Parker for plaintiff, Mr. Baynes for the defendant. This was a claim for goods sold by the defendantsat the residenceof Stein, formerly Mrs. Barnard. The defendant sold to the amonot of £11 I5s. 2d, and he had claimed the commission on the whole value £150. The goods were always in the hands of the plaintiff, the sale took place on the 20th September, and was stopped at Mr.Rmnison's suggestion, and not again placed inhis hands for sale. The whole of the amount'of the sale realised only £90, although £150 was the amount upon which commission was aharged. Mr. Bernard Stein proved MIr. Samson selling goods to the value of £146s. 63..He did not sell other goods. Nor had he soldany, on account of Mr. Stein's library.Seeing the goods almost giv. en away, the sale was stopped at his discretion. The piano was sold for £8.5P, Asked him for his account, he charged com mission for the whole value of the goods. By Mr. Tlaynes: Did not authortse Mr. Samson ts conduct the second case. Told Mr. Samson he would takes a few things from bis own shop, and add them to the other goods. W. Samson, an auctioneer,entered into an explanation, stating he had been instructed to sell the goods, arnd that seeing no bidders he suggessted a postponement of the sale, which was agreed to; the sale was after. wards placed in the hands of other aunctio. neers, and he felt himself :justified in claim ing commission for the whole value of the goods sold. Judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs. A. LETCH V. J. GARRETT. Claim £6 13s. 6d. goods sold and deliver. ed. Defendant did not appear; service of summons proved, and judgment given for £6 for plaintiff with costs, the sum of 13s. 6d. paid for a summons plaintiffhad withdrawn being allowed. PILKINGTON V. F. C. IMONGER' Claim £1 6s. 3d. for wages. The plaintiff had asked employment of Mr. Edgar, fore man to Mr. Monger, who set him to clean sandalwood. He had askel Mr. Edgar and Mr. F. Monger to pay him, and they had re fused to dose. Mr. Edgar gave asbis reason thathe had left woik of hisown accord. The summons was issued in the name of F. C. Monger, who said he did not owe the man anything. Plaintiff then said Mr. Edgar had paid him for two days work, and he had worked again from Saturday to Thursday noon. In cross-examination, the plaintiff said he had nout been engaged for the wool season;he was put on sandalwood work. Ed gar said he paid his men at the rate of 35s. per week; was paid on Friday. Did not know all the men were paid on Fridays. The defence was, that thle plaintiff bad been en gaged by the week, and had knocked off in the middle of the week of his own accord. It was as a test question thbt this action had been defended, to know whether men em ployed by the weak could knock off of their own accord, tothe inconvenience of their employers. The Court at d past one o'clock adjourned for half an hour. On reassembling, Mr. Edgar, foreman to Mir. J. t[. Monger said he had engaged the plaintiff for the wool season at 35s. per week; he worked on those conditions. On the Vel nesday told him he was not cleauing the propersized wood; he replied that ce would have nothing more to do with it. lie lelt off work oa Thursday at noon; and asked for his wages. He was told that wages wese paid on Fridays. He never wa. told he might go, or leave his work. Judgment ,or plaintilt with costs. CoUETHOP£ & 'O., V. J. HILLMAN. Claim £1 6s.for goads sold and delivered. The defendant said he had paid at the time of sale, bt had since, on advice, sent a cbheque for the amounb which h~4 bhee ro

turned by tho Clerk of the Court. Jnudg ment with costs. HARDEY V. GIaBBs. Claim L9 4s. 3d.; Mr. Burnside for plain. tiff and Mr. G. Parker for the defendant. I This was a dispute upon a building contract. Mr. Leake asked where the particulars were; he wished for them at once, in order to per. use them;if the items had been agreed .upon between the two parties there would be no necessity for him to go into figures. No particulars being before him, he wonli adjourn the case until next court day for particulars of plaintif's claim to be added tb plaint note. FAWn v. CONROY. This was an action for an assault and is jury committed by the defendant upon the plaintiff. MIr. Harper appeared for the plain tiff.and Mr. H.ynes for the defendant. Plaintiff was a journeyman painter. He went to defendant's public house on the 4th Mlarch, and called for two drinks, was per fectly sobes, Defendant wanted plaintiffto shout and he refused. Conroy then came round to witness and took hold of him by the beard, saying "You don't go out till you shout.'" He drew him by the beard into the bagatelle room, and threw him over the form and fell on him breaking his leg. The police came; told them Conroy had broken his leg; Conroy gave him in charge for being drunk and incapable told the police he could not walk as his leg was broken; they took him to the station. Corporal Beresford took him to the hospital ; had been there 13 weeks. The doctor said he was quite sober. William Arnold a painter corroborated the evidence of Fawn in every respect. For the defence Mr. Haynes submitted that the shilling over which there had been a squabble, when defendant wanted plaintift to shout, belonged to Conroy. Fawn was taken into a room and placed at the end of a form which tripped and threw Fawn, break ing his leg. The defendant William Conroy, pablican, said that Fawn had taken a shilling from the counter. Asked him to return it ; he refused;be denied dragginghim by the beard. Fawn Sat on the end of a form which trip ped up. By MIr. Leake: Saw E' n zo away;he walked out between two pnliccmen; he was notexactiysober. Heardbimcryout. His thigh was bruken. W. Carr, acarpenter, said he saw Fawn take a shilling from Conroy which he belie ved was Conroy's. Bgy MIr. Harper: Would swear Conroy did not put him on the form. Mr, Leake said he had not a shadow of be lief that the shilling was taken; Conroy wanted the man to shout; he illtreated him and broke his thigh. The man had been most brutally ill-treated,and he should give judgment for £50 and costs. He regretted that he could notgive more.

Digitisation generously supported by
Freemantle City Library
Digitisation generously supported by

Zoom

plus
thumb
minus
left
thumb
right
up
thumb
down