S.M. COURT.

Bush Advocate, Volume XVIII, Issue 592, 14 December 1906, Page 5

S.M. COURT.

<& This EJay. (Before Mr W, P. James, S.M.) . Judgment was given, with costs, for . the. plaintiff in the following undefended civil cases : — Calder, Druinmond and '■■ Co. (Mr Biakiston) v J. C. Elliott, claim ; £22 Is 7d, costs £2 17s ; E. Lloyd (Mr ; L'.oyd) v. J. C. Elliott, claim 8s o'd, costs , os ; Tirafcu Sawmill Co. v. A. J. Sabin, , claim £21 os 3d, costs 33s ; Brighouse | and Pawson (Mr Downes) v. Albert ( Lewis, claim £4 7s lid, costs 10s ; same r v. N. Skjoltrup, claim £3 9s 6d, costs L 10s ; same v. J. C. Elliott, claim £3 15s ; lid, costs 10s ; same v. F. W. Foster, ' claim £1 9s lid, costs 5s ; Dr Reid , Mackay (Mr Downes) v. William Simp,- , son, claim £2 7s, costs 15s; Wallace , Mabbett <Mr Downes) v. Thomas Mul- \ grave, claim £12 7s 7d, costs £2 17s 6d; ', same v. A. E. Barker, claim £i> 18s 6d, , costs £1 17s; Hunter and Biakiston v. P. W. Sampson, claim £2 7s, costs 1.5s ; Hunter and Biakiston v. A. L. McDuff , \Mr Biakiston) claim £3 12s 6d, costs . 10s. , POLICE CASES. ; Joseph Hickman wai charged with. ) drunkenness, and was fined os or 24 j hours' imprisonment. ; J. Bargh was charged with, procuring i liquor while he was a prohibited person. > Mr Biakiston appeared for defendant, i and urged that there were extenuating t circumstances. A fine of 10s and 7s costs was i, imposed. Lye Norn was charged with keepmg [ his sliop open on Sunday, lltk JTovem- | , her. | Accused explained that some boys | came to his back door on the day in question and wanted some crackers and t cordials, and he supplied them. ; Sergt. Cruickshank remarked that . this sort of thing had been going on for i a considerable time, aud the public ; were complaining. i His Worship severely reprimanded ; accused, who promised that he weuld . not do so any more, and a fine of 20s f and 7s- costs was imposed. I Charles Gurotte was charged by Ed- £ win Dean with rescuing a horse which. i he was proceeding to impound. i Accused pleaded not guilty, aud Mr - Lloyd represented Dean. Edwin Dean, Borough Ranger, de- - posed that he was taking accused's i horse to the pound, when accused i rushed up to him '" like a roaring lion," c and threatened him with, all sorts of j violence if he took the liorse. Accused pulled the whip out of .witness' hand, i and then took the horse away frnm him. To accused : He had authority from 3 Mr ]Vf onteifch to impound stock off the > land in question. There was no rope . on the horse at the time. He did not I know that there was anything wrong j with the horse. Witness did not at--3 tempt to strike accused with the whip. t Accused, giving evidence in his own } behalf, said he had been watching the t horses since 3 o'clock in the morning, ) and he was walking up and down the i 3 road three chains away when Dean ' . rode up to take the horse. The horse : ; was in his charge because he | i was close to him. j i His Worship said the case must fail, 3 as there was a doubt as to whether de- : fendant was not in charge of the horse, i and he would give the defendant the b benefit of the doubt. Case dismissed. Skelley v. Gurr, claim £130 8s Bd, > balance of salary due. b Mr L'.oyd appeared for the plaintiff, . and Mr Lusk, with Mr Biakiston, tor the s defendant. • The evidence was continued from last . Court day, Mr Lusk catling Sergt. Cruickshank, who deposed that i on a certain day in October last Mr . Gurr called him into his office,' where he I saw Skelley. Mr Gnrr asked Skelley if i he (SKelley) had removed certain papers from his private file, and Skelley said he had taken them for the purpose of copying them. Witness remarked that this was an improper procedure, as the let- , lers were Gurr's property as soon as they were posted to him. Skelley said he would return them when he had copied them. The next question discussed was the missing leaf of the attendance book, and Mr Gurr asked Skelley if he knew ■ anything about it, and Skelley replied . that he did not. The office boy was called, , and he denied removing the leaf. Gurr i then told Sk-illey that his work was : unsatisfactory, as certain letters had l not been posted. Skellej' alleged that ; Gurr had put the letters on his desk l after he -(Skelly) had left work. The i boy was called in, and be said he had c put the letters on Skelley's desk, aud i Skelley admitted he had made a mistake in-, accusing Gurr of putting the I l letters on the desk. Gurr then told { l Skelley to make up his time and he • 7 would give his cheque up to date. As j f he was going out Skelley bade Gurr "Good day," and said he would probably 3 hear more about it, as he had been j looking up the law on the matter. Duri* ing the interview Skc4'ej adoped rather 3 a sarcastic tone. While they were dis- ; cussing the attendance book Skelley 3 drew himseif up in a very dignified manner and remarked "How foolish, j how childish !" He also said the book j ; was the laughing stock of the town. He I - also made some other remarks of an uns complimentary nature, which witness ; could not remember. The question of I , overtime was mentioned, and Skelley | 8 excused himself for not working on one j occasion as he had to go out to dinner i ; that evening. c To Mr Lloyd : Witness went to Mr j Gurr's office reluctantly, aud he would i - not have gone but lor the fact that he ; understood certain papers had been , abstracted from the office, and he con- !

sidered this was a niafcier slightly pertaining to his duty. Eily Maud Gurr, wife of defendant, deposed that she remembered Mr Skelley being in Mr Gurr's employ and she remembered his dismissal. There was correspondence between her husband and Skeliey before the latter came and after he was with them. She recognised the letters produced as she filed them. The letter* which were not filled she had seen in Mr Gurr's private drawn 1 . She had also s-.th the original of the missing letter from Mr Brindley to Mr Gurr. Th? day before Skelley left she made a careful search for the missing leaf of the attendance j book Sjut could not find it. j To Mr Lloyd : Sue fi.ed most of the I letters, but she could not give a particular date on which she did so. Certain letters were not filed because they had private notes on them, and th. y would be wanted again. She did nut rely entirely on the file marks to indicate that the letters had been Sled. She had read them and rememboivd filing them. W.H. White lave, accountant for Blak- • isfcon aud Biakiston, remembered certain I documents being handed into the office by Mr Lloyd. He was instructed to put them in order of dates and number them. Ail the papers produced, with the firm's : stamp on them, were marked by him I He was confident that the file holes were in the papers when he stamped them, because the stamp showed through, the hole on to the sheet beneath. He did not remember on what date ho stamped j the documents. He did not return them to Mr Gurr. H. M. Biakiston, solicitor, remembered applying to Mr Skeliey for certain [ papers required in. the case, and he received a reply that they would be retarned when copied. Subsequently he received the papers, and they were immediately stamped by Mr Whitelaw. They were then handed back to witness, and they had not been out of the office since. He was positive that the documents were stamped immediately they were brought into the office. By way of rebutting evidence, Mr i Lloyd called: — Ida Jackson, formerly kookkeeper for Mr Gurr, deposed that she held tliat position from October, 1905, to Sspternber, 1906 Slits remembered Mr Skeliey coming to the office to be managing , clerk. During the first three weeks j Mr Skelley may have been 15 minutes { late on some mornings, but she believed j he worked overtime. She remember.-d Mr Skelley going to Carterton, and Mr Gurr getting a telegram from Skelley. He discussed his reply with her. She had not heard Skelley speaking disrespectfully to Mr Gurr, and if he had done so she must have heard it. Skelley was always respectful towards Gurr, but Gurr's manner towards Skelley teas at times provoking. She saw Skelley's letters in Gurr's drawer. She frequently went to the drawer to get papers. The letters were on a clip. She did not remember if any of them were filed, and she did not remember seeing file marks on them. She once saw Mr Brind ley's private letter while she was lookiug for invoices It was not with the other bundle, but was lying loose. She remembered Mr Gurr granting permission to Skelley to go to Woodville to play football. Skelley observed his office hours very well and he worked sometimes on Wednesdays. Skelley did hot write up the invoice book as only Gurr knew the prices. Skeliey was not asked to do the books while she was there. His work was to look after the State Fire business, properties, and the machinery. To Mr Lusk : She knew of Mr Skelley's work, because he used to come into Mr Gurr's office to speak about it. She could not say how many times Skelley went out on property business, and she was not in a position to say ho?/ much work he did in the office. She believed Skelley worked overtime because act told her he did so. There may have been occasions on which Skelley may have bten insolent to Mr Gurr. She would not consider it respectful if she had told Mr Gurr that she would stand an. examination in bookkeeping with him. She would not have asked Mr Gurr if "he would ever grow ,up." She frequently went to Mr Gurr's desk for papers as he had told her to get what papers she wanted. ° To the Bench : She did not remember getting a payment from Mr Senk. She did not remember telling Skelley j that she received such a payment. ! George Britten Wratten, commission agent, deposed that he was sole agent for a certain Kiritaki property, of wliich he gave Mr Gurr particulars. Mr Skelley had something to do with the sale of the property. To Mr Lusk : He "had squared up Gurr as to the commission. j H. Tilsley deposed that he purchased a property which was insured in the State Office. When the policy ran out he did not renew it, because ho insured it In his own office. Mr Skelley's carelessness had nothing to do with the change. j To Mr Lusk .- He did not consult the mortgagee about the change. (Left Sitting )