FATHER AND SON.

Auckland Star, Volume XLII, Issue 287, 2 December 1911, Page 10

FATHER AND SON.

EESfUNERAIKMJ FOE LABOUR. At the Supreme Court this morning resented judgment was given by Mr. Justice ' Edwards in the case Perrott (Mr. Reed) v. Perrott (Mr. McVeagh), ■which 'was tried at Hamilton at the September sittings. The plaintiffs claim for two sums of £373 17/6 and £384, respectively, alleged to have been loaned to defendant, who tcbs his son. Further remuneration was claimed from defendant in respect of services rendered by >im from March 4, 1909, to the date of the trial of the action. At the trial Mr. Reed appeared for plaintiff and Mr. Gilchrist for defedant. Upon the conclusion of the evidence, his Honor held that the fact -was substantiated that the two sums alleged by plaintiff to have been loaned were, in fact, loaned, and that plaintiff was entitled to judgment in respect of same. The further question as to whether or not the plaintiff was entitled to remuneration for his services as a labourer upon defendant's farm at Waitoa was reserved for argument at Auckland. In delivering his considered judgment : upon that question, his Honor held that the plaintiff, before joining the defendant, -was in regular employment at Marlbarough, and that he was induced by the defendant to give up his position and work for him. As a matter of law, his Honor held that where services were secured under promise or expectation of remuneration, no person should be allowed to take advantage- of bis own wrong, and. further, that remuneration was payable in that case. "The plaintiff," continued his Honor, "must therefore have judgment for the two several sums of £373 17/6 and £384, and for a further sum by way of remuneration for hie services from March 4. 1909, to April 8. 1911, at the rate of 25/ per week, the amount, if the parties cannot agree upon it, to be calcuated by the Registrar, and to be submitted to mc if-or consideration. The plaintiff must also have his costs according to the pnale of the amount recorded against the defendant. I certify to the extra allowance of fifteen guineas for the second day of the trial." Mr. McYeagh intimated that no trouble was likely to occur in adjusting the amount of remuneration. CLAIM FOR WAGES. EFFECT OF A COMPROMISE. An action -was brought by John 'Murcbison against the ship Gem for recovery of £21 10/-, alleged to be due for wages. Plaintiff was sailing master of the vessel for three months 2S days, and during that period there were -three changes in the ownership, it finally falling into the hands of J. J. Craig, who resisted the claim. One Gillies was runi ning the vessel on a basis of two-third-* profits, and was supposed to pay plaintiffs wages. He failed to do so, anl the claim was lodged against the ship. Mr. Craig's answer was that the plaintiff was working the vessel in conjunction with Gillies, under an arrangement by which the plaintiff and Gillies divided the profits, and that the plaintiff received from Gillies all that was due to him, except a sum of £2, or thereabouts ; that the shipowner was unaware that the plaintiff made any claim for wages until after he had left . the vessel; that the plaintiff then made an uncertain claim upon him, which he disputed, and that after some discussion he. without admitting any claim against him, agreed to pay to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff agreed to accept from him in full satisfaction of bis claim, the sum of £3. The amount was paid, an J a receipt given "in full settlement of wages to date." His Honor said he was satisfied that the plaintiff thoroughly understood at. j the time that the money was paid to ! him as a compromise and in full settlement of his claims, both against the schooner and against Mr. Craig, as her owner. On the other hand, he was j satisfied that the plaintiff had made out his claim for wages, and that, apart from his settlement with Mr. Craig Se was entitled to recover the amonnt Maimed. Tie question to be determined was whether or not the plainI tiff was bound by his settlement with Mr. Craig, and his Honor held that ! there was nothing to prevent the claim of a master against a ship, or against I the owner of a ship, from being settled in the same manner as a claim arising under any other contract. The settlecent was binding upon the plaintiff as a compromise of an existing right, •which was bona-fide in dispute between the parties. It was honestly arrived at, and there -was no ground upon which it could be disregarded. The plaintiff made a bad bargain, but he wade it I with his eyes open, and with a complete knowledge of the facts, of which, on the other hand, Mr. Craig, when the compromise was made, knew very little. ' The suit was therefore dismissed. i His Honor did not think the case was one for costs. The plaintiff had lost his wages, and Mr. Craig had {rot the benefit of the loss. The defence upon the merits, apart from tne compromise, which was not set. up as a compromise, had failed. The defence in law also failed, and Mr. Craig succeeded upon a ground not taken by his counsel. Mr. McGregor appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Prendergast for defendant.