RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LYTTELTON.

Lyttelton Times, Volume II, Issue 93, 16 October 1852, Page 7

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LYTTELTON.

Strickland v. Alport.—This was an action to recover the sum of £,15, for wages alleged to be due to Strickland as the servant of the Christchurch Conveyance Company. Mr. Moorhouse appeared for the Plaintiff, and Mr. Dampier for the Defendant. The case for the Plaintiff was, that he was a servant of the Company, employed to work their vessels ; that he was not allowed to collect freights, or exercise any discretion in taking or refusing goods, or giving or rejecting credit; that he carried those goods, and those only, which were brought down to the wharf by the Company's Agent, and delivered them at Christchurch or elsewhere as directed by the Agent; that he was a mere tool, moved about by the Company's Agent, without reference to Plaintiff's will or opinion ; that in consideration of his serving the Company in the manner stated, he was to receive one-third of the gross earnings of the vessel, in lieu of wages, without deductions for bad debts, as he understood; and that the fact of his being an ordinary servant was shewn from the power which lay in the Agent to discharge, and which he had exercised in Plaintiff's case. Mr. Strickland was called, and proved the terms of his contract to serve as above stated, and that the Defendant, although he acknowledged the amount Plaintiff claimed to be earned, yet refused to pay, assigning as a reason that the money was not collected; that he had been discharged by the Agent some time before this suit was commenced. Cross-examined by Mr. Dampier: The Plaintiff stated that he had formerly worked another, vessel upon halves ; that his partner being no scholar, left the entire management of the vessel to Plaintiff, and all collections of freight, granting of credit, and other matters, were undertaken by him, he being responsible for bad debts; that times were then good, and money plentiful; never engaged himself as servant responsible for debts, the terms of his contract not allowing him to exercise any caution in the matter of giving credit ; that latterly a new engagement to serve at so much per month had been made. Mr. Moorhouse, in addressing the Court contended that the case brought before the Court by Mr. Dampier's cross-examination of Strickland, was—although evidence of custom in one line of cases —by no means parallel with the one now tried ; the terms were essentially different, —one was a speculative enterprise, the present was a mere service; and that as the Plaintiff was not allowed to reject any freights that were provided him, the Defendant could not fairly saddle him with a participation in losses which were not incurred by his own agency, and that no sane man would engage to serve another on such terms. Mr. Dampier said, that the agreement was not as between master and servant, but as between contractors ; that, although only a verbal agreement had taken place, yet it was-expressly understood that Stiicklaud was only to receive a portion of the money actually collected: and in order to support his position, handed over to the Bench the account books of the Conveyance Company. Mr. Moorhouse contended that these were no evidence of the contract, and that they did not disclose any evidence of Strickland being privy to such statement of" accounts. At this stage of the proceedings, the dent Magistrate, having frequently during the hearing expressed himself of opinion that there was no case lor Plaintid, declined going further into evidence for the defence, and dismissed the case.