Thursday, July 15. (Before His Honor Judge Ward.) FERGUS V. PETEK. This case was adjourned for a month. LUSCOMBE V. GRIGG. Claim L 35 Bs. 6d. This was an action to recover wages stopped by defendant for alleged bad threshing. A case for recovery of damages by Mr. Grigg from Mr. Luscombe had been decided in Mr. Grigg’s favor in the R.M. Court, and this was the action referred to, during the hearing of the R.M. case, as pending in the District Court. After argument it was agreed that the set-off be struck out, and if plaintiff recovered any judgment, execution to be delayed pending the hearing of appeal on the judgment of the R.M. Court in Grigg v. Luscombe. If appeal is not brought before the Supreme Court within three months, or if brought within that time it fails, then the two judgments to be setoff, one against the other.
F. G. Luscombe, plaintiff, said that he was in the service of defendant, threshing grain, from January to May. The rate of wages to be paid was to be 255. per 1,000 bushels of grain. Was engaged by Mr. Button, Mr. Grigg’s manager, who asked me w r hat I had got for wages in previous years. I replied that I had previously been paid 255., and he said the price would be the same as in previous years. I had been threshing for Mr. Grigg four seasons. I threshed 54,4061/ bushels. When I got the account of my wages I told Mr. Grigg to alter the amount to 255. per 1,000 bushels, the same as had been agreed on between myself and Mr. Button. Last year my brother and I worked in partnership, and we divided the responsibility of the work—he feeding, I driving. We took together L2 ss. per 1,000 bushels, and divided the money equally, thus getting each 225. 6d. This year I was to take all the responsibility myself, and therefore was to be paid 255. per 1,000 bushels.
By Mr. Branson—Am certain that Button told me the rate of wages would be the same as last year. Got LI per 1,000 last year for feeding ; my brother was then driving. Could not tell how many bushels I was paid at the rate of LI perl,ooo. Couldnotsayif Igot LI per 1,000 for 40,000 bushels and 225. 6d. per 1,000 for 9,000. Could not swear positively to how many seasons I have threshed for Mr. Grigg. Mr. Grigg fixed my rate of wages last year and Mr. Button this year.
Henry Martin, engine-driver Was engaged as driver this year. The usual rate of driving was 255. I was paid more ; 255. included tucker. I was found. Tor the defence, Mr. Branson called Edward Button, manager for Mr. Grig"— Recollected Luscombe coming to me and asking about the rate of wages for threshing. Told him, for aught I knew, they would be the same as last year. Luscombe last year was paid LI per 1,000 for 40,000 and 22s 6d per 1,000 for 9,000. Afterwards Luscombe asked me if the drivers’ wages wages were lower, and I told him I didn’t know.
Frederick Waymonth—The usual rate of wages paid in the district was LI per 1000 for drivers. Other machine owners have told me so. Luscombe demurred to his account, and to the rate paid. Mr. Joseph Clark has told me the rate of wages. His Honor said that this hearsay evidence could not be accepted, and as the whole question between the parties was the rate per 1000 bushels, it -would be necesary to produce machine owners. Mr. Branson applied for an adjournment to admit of the production of machine owners.
Mr. O’Reilly objected. His Honor said it was apparent from the evidence that the plaintiff had been engaged as driver this year, and not as a feeder. Mr. Button had engaged Luscomhe, and Mr. Grigg had ratified the engagement by accepting the work, and paying for it. Judgment would be given for plaintiff for full amount, with costs. E. G. Wright v. Fletcher.—Claim L2OC. Adjourned for a month, on the application of Mr. Branson, for plaintiff. Stalker v. Megson—Claim L 123 16s. for threshing. For plaintiff, Mr. Branson, for defendant, Mr. Crisp. Mr. Crisp consented to judgment, on condition that execution be stayed, pending the healing of a cross action. Security fur the amount of judgment to bo given by defendant. IN BANKRUPTCY. Orders for discharge • were granted on the application of the several solicitors for the following J. Y. Ward, Henry Redfern, James Baylis, and C. B. M. Branson ; and orders for payment of costs re Risely Brothers and W. Frisby. Re John Moore, application by Mr. Branson for bankrupt’s discharge, his Honor said he observed that all the certificated accountants in bankruptcy had refused in turn to accept the trusteeship. These gentlemen had no right to refuse such a position simply because there were no assets, and unless good cause were shown -why they had refused he would appoint others in their stead. The application was ultimately granted. lie Maclean and Winter.—Deed of assignment declared completely executed, on application of Mr. Branson.
lie Roberts v. Friedlander—Mr. Branson applied for an extension of time for preparing an appeal, as he had received a letter from Messrs. Garrick and CowIshaw, solicitors for plaintiff, stating that they declined to accept the case for appeal stated by himself, until they obtained his Honor’s notes of the case, for which they had written.
His Worship said two days ago he had received a telegram asking for these notes, and had telegraphed his readiness to let them be obtained, but no application had been made to the Clerk of Court. Ho affidavit was laid before the Court by Mr. Branson, and the simple statement of solicitors could not be accepted. He would not assent to the application.
Permanent link to this item
DISTRICT COURT., Ashburton Guardian, Volume 1, Issue 127, 17 July 1880
DISTRICT COURT. Ashburton Guardian, Volume 1, Issue 127, 17 July 1880
Using This Item
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.