DISTRICT COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 203, 31 August 1887, Page 8

DISTRICT COURT.

Tiiis ©ay

(Before H. G. Seth Smith, Esq., District Judge, and a jury of four).

Benjamin Peakce v. William Kobertson. —Claim £40. Mr Thos. Cotter appeared lor the plaintiff, and Mr Theo. Cooper for the defendant. Mr Cotter.in opening the case, stated that plaintiff had been engaged by defendant, who was master of the steamer Oreti, to serve as fireman on board that vessel for a period of six months at a remuneration of £10 per month, the engagement at any time to be terminable by 24 hours' notice on either side. In the month of March the plaintiff met with an acciient in defendant's service, resulting in the loss of two lingers and incapacitating him for further service. He therefore withdrew from the vessel, but received no notice of discharge. He therefore claimed wages from the Ist of April last until the Ist of August, at the rate of £10 per month, viz., £40 in all. The defence consisted of a denial of the alleged indebtedness of the defendant, and an allegation that on the 30th of March plaintiff left the defendant's service, and had remained absent from it ever since. The articles were produced by the defendant, and showed that the six months contract expired on the 10th of June. —Mr Cotter at once altered the claim to £23 6s Bd,being the amount of wages from the time of tho accident until the expiration of the contract in June. Evidence was given by the plaintiff (Pearce, who appeared with his injured left hand in a sling), J. W. Waller, owner of the Oreti, and James Stewart, engineer of the same vessel. After the learned counsel had argued the legal points involved in the case. His Worship summed up. He said that the question was chiefly one of fact. As for the legal aspect of a case where there was a contract for personal service, incapacity, either through illness or accident, would be a ground for determining tho contract, and the servant would then have no further claim for wages. If, however, the master did not determine the contract by giving the stipulated 24 hours' notice, but allowed things to go on, the servant would be entitled to wages as he remained in the service of his master. In this case it appeared that no express discharge was given. Unless, therefore, something was done on either side having the effect of determining the contract, the plaintiff would be entitled to wages up to its natural expiration. The jury retired, and after a brief deliberation found a verdict for plaintiff for £23 6s Bd, being wages up to the expiry of the contract in June. The costs amounted to £8 Is additional.