S. M. COURT, TAURANGA.

Bay of Plenty Times, Volume XXIV, Issue 3975, 21 March 1900, Page 2

S. M. COURT, TAURANGA.

Tuesday, March 20th, 1900. [Before Lt-Col. Roberts, S.M.] A. 0. Field v. C. La Roche, claim for £50, wages from October 1 10 th 1899 to February 27th 1900, at £2 10s per week. Mr Lewis for plaintiff, Mr Sharp for defendant. A. O. Field gave evidence as to his arrangements with defendant. He was registered as printer and publisher of the Tauranga Herald, of which, defendant was proprietor. At a meeting at defendant's house, defendant said he thought witness was the very man to run a paper. Witness offered to work as editor or publisher. La Roche thought he as proprietor should be editor and publisher. No mention was made as to rate of pay. It was arranged that witness was to get commission on advertisements he got, at 20 per cent, and this was to be in addition, to wages. They had arranged that they were to draw no money for three months, till Jan. 10th, till the first quarter's accounts came in Witness had done most of the work of the paper; defendant a1 first wrote a few of the leaders anc locals but not latterly. Had ofter asked for some money since Jan 10th, but only got a few ode shillings. At race time, March Is asked for some money, La Rochi offered 4s, said this > was absur< after 5 months work and the] would have to settle matters whei he came back. That night whei finished work told La Roche h< intended not to come back in tin morning. Could not possibly hav< lived on commissions as had n< chance to get out and get orders. By Mr Sharp : — At the end o: the first quarter they made i rough estimate and reckoned th< business was worth about £120 t< £140. Had never seen any books up to a fortnight ago did not thinl there were any books. Hat told the Court all the arrange ments between them that he wa aware of. Had never made an; arrangement that the Herald offic< might be used as his private office Had a. com mission agency somi 18 months ago but had neve attempted to do any business fo it. It had been arranged that an; advertisements he required were t go in free. He was to get ordinar; wages and 20 per cent on al business he personally got. Wa supposed to give his whole time t Mr La Roche's service ; only o] one occasion had done any privat business, in connection with th Licensing poll, got £5 for that Mr and Mrs La Roche and stai helped in it. Had not given M La Roche any credit for that, h was entitled to half by arrange ment, but he, witness, had a contr; against this for commission a 20 per cent on £10, for worl ordered by the Premier when h was here, to be done by M La Roche. Had received sundr subscriptions but had not pai< them over ; they might be betweei £2 and £3 ; had a contra for com missions against La Roche. Th commission agency advertisemen was only bogus, put in to fill up. At this, stage some argumen ensued between counsel as ti whether the commission account ought not to be included in th action, Mr Lewis arguing that the; might form the basis of a separati action. Mr Sharp argued that M: La Roche* had a right to claim i set off on account of the various items admitted by witness and i: these were allowed and the amoum thus reduced below £50 it woulc deprive him of his right to appeal After nearly an hour's argumeni it was agreed to allow £10 to be added to the claim on account oi commission. Examination resumed by Mi Sharp : — Admitted having received about £3 collected on behalf of Mr La Roche. Had received odd shillings nbw and then. If defendant's books showed he had received £4 18s 6d he would say it was not correct. Nothing was neglected at the time of the Licensing advertisement. Did not use the Herald office as his. Advertisement as commission agent was only pat in to fill up space ; plenty more like that, was not agent for McDonald, nursery man, when his advertisement appeared, advertisement was spread out to fill space No one ever came to the office in reply to this advertisement. Had never been printer and publisher before, thought £2 10a a week very moderate wages. Was emphatically no understanding that witness was to become a partner at the end of three months. Did not want to be a partner at the first ; it was not discussed, defendant's words were, ' I will finance my own paper.' Did not know how he came to make that statement. Only opened letters addressed to the office, not if to La Roche, only one had a cheque, £1 :>dd, from Wellington, did no ittempt to cash it or borrow a £] igainst it ; brought it to the Post naster to be countersigned. Hac ■epeatedly asked for money as part of his wages but never definitely made the claim as now sued for. By Mr Lewis :—The cheque mentioned was brought up for countersignature as he was coming up with letters, taken back and placed on Mr La Roche's desk. E, L.. Smith, had conversation about three weeks ago with Mr Laßoohe re paper, came in with Laßoche and J. A. Clark. Asked why he had not taken out advertisement as quarter was up and he had paid for it ; also s<tid he should not have paid as Li Bochft's partner o-v^d him a £. Mr La Roche said he had no partner. G, A.. Ward, gave evHence as, to rate of pay for employee in a printing office. Miss VeraClarkson, compositor. ! deposed as to the nature of th* work done in the office. Miss M. Griffith, c mpo^ii.M, said Mr Field did the writing

and worked the paper off, uaed to do some of the managing. Mr Laßoche used to make up the f ormeß and work off the paper in the evenings with Mr Field. Mr Field did a good deal of work. By Mr Sharp.— Mr Laßoche did some of the writing but Mr Field pid most of it. This concluded the plaintiff's case. Mr Sharp opened the oase for the defendant. 0. La Roche deposed that he arranged with Field, at a meeting at witnesses house, that he should assist him in conducting a paper in Tauranga and told him, (Field), that as it would be rather a precarious venture it must be carried on on the cheapest lines, could pay no large wages, wanted an agent to canvass for subscriptions, advertisements, etc., would be willing to give 20 per cent remuneration. Field asked would he allow him to come in as a partner, because he said he had money coming from England and wanted to invest it. Said he could not let him in as a partner till he saw his money. Field said he had a i number of good agencies and ; could get a lot more and wanted : an office, he also thought of startl ing a branch at Te Puke and , particularly wished to be conL neoted with the paper as a partner : or otherwise, and wanted witness i to make some arrangement to keep I him in the office till his monej r came from England. Told Field i he could not pay him wages, he i could use office for his agencies i and free advertising in paper on ) consideration of giving whal j assistance he could in office on > publishing days and he was to gc out and canvass the district. foi I the benefit of the paper and hie i own business. He agreed to givt i every assistance in the office or > these terms on condition that wit- , ness allowed him to be a partner : at the end of three months or at 1 soon as his money came- front - England. There was a previous 5 meeting when he told Field thai r it would be best they should cora< 3 to a definite understanding. Mr* . La Koche was present at the coni versation at the house and hearc r most of it. P. Hammond was nil r foreman and was paid regularly t He had Misses Olarkson anc ) Griffiths in the office and two boys r they were on wages and were al ] paid. Young Bonner was rib 3 paid, he took the paper rounc j and sometimes he gave him twc i shillings or so when he helped ii 3 the office. Lent Field mone^ 3 from time to time, Field alway! ; asked for a loan of it. Field hac I received money, some of whicl r witness did not know of, was verj 3 hard to tell what money Field hac - received till he had seen all hii i customers. Had found out tha t Field had opened some of hii t (witness's) letters and takei 3 money out and had not accounted c for it. As for the Premier's worli t Field had nothing to do with it, I Witness was the editor and did i mostof the work,. Field wrote thret ■ of the leading articles, witness 3 wrote most of them, the other* b were culled by Mr Field from other papers. Mr Field used ,tc b do the small boy's business, ink- > ing, while Hammond was fhere 3 Witness most decidedly did mosi j of the work; Field did a fail r amount of work on publishing i days but not on other days when - he was supposed to be canvassing, t. Field was not under witness's i orders, came and went as he : pleased. ; Thfi Court here adjourned. The case was resumed at 7.30 p.m. : C. La Roche, resumed his evidence, examined by -Mr Bharp. Up to Jan 7 owed Field com-, mission on £15 7s 6d, viz £3 Is 6d. For the next quarter owed commission on £17 6s Bd, viz, £3 9a 6d. Against this had paid in cash £8 lls up to Jan 29, since tbja about 30s. Could only say wha money he knew plaintiff has re ceived, viz, £2 13s, not including money drawn from the licensee Victuallers Association of whicl £3 108 should have gone t( witness. By Mr Lewis :— Produced book showing orders received by different agents. The account of Mi Field's commission was correct he considered. Believed JMfr Field got Musgrave's advertisement. There was a doubt about Daines'a but he would give Mr Field the benefit. Hardly thought Mr Field could claim Dickey's. In - structions were to take advertisements payable quarterly, Mr Field did not get written ot printed orders for his yearly advertisements and so he deolined to recognise them. Particulars of money lent were entered in the Gash book, last entry was made at the end of December. Swore positively that all the items had been posted before the end of last year ; had nofc posted up a cash book since < had not had the time to do it. Had no entries for the' 30s since. Mr Lewis asked His Worship to carefully examine the entries in the book produced which appeared to be remarkably fresh. By Mr Lewis. — During the five months Field had „ received about £7 for his work. The first agreement made was the one at witness's house, b&fore that Field had nothing to do with the paper ; though Field was going about talking as if he were the proprietor of the paper. Did not think the office was worth Is a week to Field as he never attempted to do any business, he was always fussing about pretending to do a ' lot for witness's business, i Thought it should have been i worth 10s as it was not desirable - to have another person using half one's premises. Was only pay 1 insr 5s a w*>ek for the premises < himself. Knew that Field never * tried to do any business. It was : pure and simple gooH natuie that ' be let Field appear as printer and pablishpiv hecaußf* Fje ! d wanted 3 to seem to have something to do

L with it. H9 was nominally prinr ter and publisher, the affidavit > that he was such was simply to 1 give him a little tone. There was r an arrangement that Mr Field should act as printer - aud pub--9 ltsher without remuneration. He r did not do the physical part of the work of printer and publisher. s Began work about 8 o'clock in the morning; on publishing days r usually got finished by 12 o'clock at night, was sometimes 2 o'clock, not often 4 o'clock next morning. Field did messenger boys work and went to Mr D. Asher's for information, etc. Had heard the evidonce of his late employees about the work done by Mr Field ; it was quite incorrect. Witness did most of the writing himself, Field mostly cut pieces out of other papers ; the two girls who I gave evidence were not in a position to judge who did the work. Considered that Mr Field's work was worth about 5s a week. He was always in the office reading exchanges. By Mr Sharp: — Field seemed only too glad to work at the paper; witness did not press the work on him. Could have got a competent man to do Field's work for 10s a week. Had told him the business would not run wages ; witness had lost money by it himself. It cost him seven or eight shillings a week to supply Mr Field with drinks. Mrs LaEoche, deposed to being present at an interview between Mr Laßoche and Mr Field at her house about two weeks before the paper started. .Mr LaEoche told plaintiff he was thinking of starting a paper and wanted some one to work on cocumisßion, he had heard that Mr Field was taking up commission business and thought he would be very suitable. Field spoke of £200 he was expecting from Home and asked if Mr LaEoche would not take him into partnership. Mr LaEoche said he had no objection provided they got on together. They made an agreement that Field was to have the use of the office in return for a little help on the paper. Mr LaEoche said he could not afford to pay wages. Field said he tiad never been in a, printing office or written for a papier but he would do what he could to help with pleasure. ' By Mr Lewis:— Her husband owed witness money, roughly speaking about £165, held security over the plant of the newspaper, given recently. That consideration would not alter her, if her husband owed a man sixpence he should pay it. Re-examined by Mr Sharp:— Thought there was £125 secured to her on the plant,, the money was i;o carry on the paper and pay what he owed. After hearing addresses of Counsel, His Worship said he was of opinion that the weight of evidence was in favour of defendant, the claim for "wages would therefore be struck out. As regards the commission it seemed to him that there was about 30s due to tlje plaintiff, but on this point he was in doubt. Counsel agreed that the matter of the amount of commissions and costs due 6tand over till next court day. ..'.'. . The Court then rose.