DISTRICT COURT, CLYDE.

Dunstan Times, Issue 661, 18 December 1874, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT, CLYDE.

—o— Tursr.DAY, December 22. (Before Ilis Honor Judge Gray and a Jury of 4, Mr W. ~nd, chairman.) Thomas and Margaret Walters v. J. Harrison.—Damages L2OO, for wrongful dismissal. Mr W. Johnston, solicitor for the plaintiffs ; and M r F. J. Wilson for defendant. The facts of the case as stated by Mr Johnston were—Defendant, who is a runholder, residing at Glen Nevis Station, Nevis, on ,81st October last hired in Dunedin the plaintiffs, the man as head shepherd, the woman as cook, at a yearly wa. o of L 75 and found, and L 5 travelling expenses. On the 7th November the plaintiffs arrived on the Station. They were never asked to work, and on the 10th of November they received a letter containii g their dismissal on the grounds of refusing to work, hence the present action. Thomas Walters, being sworn, deposed to the facts as stated, and in cross-examiua" tion said—l first saw defendant on the S ation on the 7th, the day of my arrival. He merely t"ld us to go to O'Connor’s to board and lodge, and that he would see us again. On again seeing him I asked him what I was to do. He said he had nothii g to do with it, but that Mr Masters, his agent, would set us to work. Mr Masters, who was present, denied being defendant’s agent, and said he had nothing to do with it. I saw defendant subsequently at Mr Masters, when be again referred us to Mr Masters. MrMasters said he had no doubt defendant would give us L2O to break the agreement.

Margaret Walters deposed to being present at one interview, when the defendant suggested that we should break the agreement, and enter into a fresh one with Mr Masters. Wo objected to this, saying we preferred sticking to the original agreement with him. Through the conduct of defendant we have been put to groat inconvenience.

W. .7. Harrison deposed—l entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs to serve mo as head shepherd and cook. They arrivd on my station on November 7th. I told them to board and lodge at O’Connor’s, and I told Walters to look about and employ himself during my absence. On the 11th I saw them again, and told them to hold themselves in readiness to work under Mr Masters’ instructions. Walters replied, “But I am engaged by you, and will not be bossed over by Mr Masters.” I told him he would find Mr Masters a good employer, Walters then said to Mr Masters, “Am I to understand you arc Mr Harrison’s agent or overseer.” Mr Masters replying in the negative, Walters then said, “ I will not work for you,” Mr Masters then said, “If you will not work for Mr Harrison under me, I will engage you. ” Walters refused to do this. I then said to Walters that I did not think it was right to act in this way. He replied, “ That, is all right, I don’t care if I never do any work, my wife will support me.” 1 said that was not a manly feeling. [Walters here remarked, in an under tone, something about the witness telling lies. The attention of the Judge being called Walters was called to the Bar, and was reprimanded, and nsked to at ouec apologise. This he did, and the matter dropt.]

Harrison continued—l next saw Walters on the 14th, when Mr Masters said that Walters had refused to work, this he did not deny, and generally expressed himatlf as unwilling to work under Mr Masters. I then said that as lie had refused to enter

my'servicea he would he responsible. Subequently in the day I saw him, when be said he would make me pay for it, and that it would not bo the first time that he had had to defend himself. On the IGth I sent a letter dismissing them. Cross-examined—At the time of hiring, nor on the 7th had I rented the run. On the 11th or 12th I rented it to Mr Masters. Win. W. Masters, runholder, gave corroborative evidence to the last witness Counsel having addressed the Jury, and His Honor summed up, the Jury retired ; and on returning into Court in about halfan -hour, gave a verdict for plaintiff for L 73, being one year’s wages, and costs of Court L 3 11s 6d; witnesses, L2 Cs; and Jurors, C2. Tuesday, Dec. 13, (Before His Honor Wilson Gray.) Baird v. Halliday.—Ejectment—Settled. Morse v. Naylor.—Judgment in this case, which had been postponed from a previous a ttiug of the Court, to give time for replies to cmrespondeuce with the plaintiff, who is in Canada, was further postponed.