DISTRICT COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LI, Issue 5614, 21 February 1879, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

Thuesdat, Ifcß 20. (Before Hja Honor Judge Ward.) BOBiHioir r. EOBursoif beds. Hr Joynt for plaintiff. Mr O’Reilly for defendants. , Claim, balance of account for Wages, 4c.,£88. ; On the eve being called, : Mr Harper applied for the list of causes to tie read, in order to see which would be postponed. The list wag read, and the following cases were dealt with as below. Hoffmeister’s Trustee v. Marks, adjourned. Vincent and Another v. Be Costa, settled out of Court. Appeal of Maria Benjamin, abandoned. On the application of Mr Joynt, His Honor granted costs against the appellant. Mason, Strothers, and Co., v. Waller, adjourned on application of Mr Harper for plaintiff, on payment of costs. Mr Joynt having briefly opened the case for plaintiff, called James Bobinsoh, labourer, residing at Addington, who deposed. The defendants live at Dunsandel. I engaged with them at £IOO a yeaT'On Jan. 16,1877. I put in the hands of their .storeman, James Brady, in March, 1877, £2. A man was leaving the place who had to pay an account. He could not get change or his cheque, and I lent £2 to the storeman to enable him to do it. The money has never been refunded to me. I gave £5, in a cheque, to Beriah Bobinson. It was a cheque which Boyce, of Timaru, had given to me, and was drawn by Parsons on the Union Bank, Timaru. I gave it to him because I could not get it cashed. I handed it to the storeman, who told me he would give me credit for it on the books. It has never been repaid to me. Cross-examined by Mr O’Reilly: I claim the balance of my wages, about £B7 or £BB— for wages and £7 advanced. I admit getting the money in set off. I was leaving the defendant’s employment in April, 1878. I gave notice twice. I never got an account. I asked twice for an account but never got it. I was not to be paid £25 of my salary in the shape of rent for cottage. I had a cottage at Addington, It was my father’s house. My father died about three months after I took possession of the house. It was lying idle when I went to it. My father died Mat 31, 1877. I went to the house Feb, 6,1877. It belonged to my father. I made an agreement with my father for the rent. There was nothing definite as to the rent of the house.

I hare paid no rent to any one, and am still in the occupation. lily brother did not let me the house on Jan. 9,1877. He had no authority to lot it. I was in the house on Feb. 6.

Ee-examined : My father was living with a sister of mine at Dunsandol. My father was of unsound mind, and was not aware that I had taken possession of the Addington house. My brothers might have known, but I did not tell them. Till T left my brothers’ employment, no one ever made a demand upon me for rent.

This was the case for the plaintiff. For the defence Mr O’Eeilly called Beriah Eobinson, storekeeper at Dunsandel, who deposed: Plaintiff was in my employment; he had to drive ,a drapery van round the country. I produce my books. His Honor asked if the entries in the book had been made by the witness. The witness replied that some had been made by himself arid others by his storeman. His Honor Said that the storeman’s entries could not be taken as evidence.

Witness continued: I paid all cash, (The witness was examined as to the details of the account which had been pleaded ns a set-off.) Whenever I paid money away I told the clerk of it.. Plaintiff was away for two weeks, and is charged a fortnight’s salary. I was agent for my father, and let plaintiff the house at £25. I have since acted for the trustee, my brother, William Eobinson, who authorised me to let the place. My father was of unsound mind for about two months before his death. I was appointed agent by my father, but not in writing. (Mr O’Eeilly said he would abandon the item of rent.) Cross-examined by Mr Joynt: The plaintiff was away for two weeks in February, on the occasion of the death of his child. I told him that all the time he lost would be kept off. I told him so when I engaged him, and after he came back from Timaru, where he had been a day or two. I did not stop his wages for that time, because it was not worth, while. The two weeks wages were charged against him in a memorandum book I keep. It would have been carried into the ledger when we made up his account. I don’t know why it was not carried in at the time.

James Denham, storeman and book-keeper to D. Eobinson and Co., Dunaandel, deposed: I entered the service of defendants on Feb. 11, 1878. (The witness deposed to a number of items in the account of plaintiff with the defendants. Some of the articles charged for he could hot swear that the plaintiff had received.) , I could not swear to receiving any particular cheque from the plaintiff,-. I received a good many from him., Plaintiff was re-called by .Mr Joynt and examined as to several items in the account. Mr O’Keilly reviewed the evidence for the defendants, and Mr Joynt replied. His Honor gave judgment for the plaintiff, £66 16s 4d and costs. KIiAXTS V. GBABAtT. Mr Joynt for plaintiff, Mr Izard for defendant. This was a claim for £162 16s for wages, payable to plaintiff’s wife from Feb. 17, 1873, to March 10,1877. The defendant is a farmer in the Tai Tapu district. The parties are Germans, and the defence set up was that the plaintiff’s wife had acted as mistress not as servant to defendant. Mr Joynt having opened the case, called Wilhelmina Klaus, wife of William Klaus, who deposed : I know Mr Grabau. I have been living at his house for eleven years, as his housekeeper. I left on November, 1878. About February, 1873 he paid me £2OO for wages to that date. From then till March 10.1877, when defendant went to Germany, I remained with him. He returned on Oct. 15.1878. He promised all along to pay me the wages, but asked me to wait, as he had not got the money. He promised me at first £3O a year, but i told him I could not stop for that He promised me whatever was fair. Whilst he was away I was housekeeper, manager, and everything. The whole farm was managed by me. I received and paid all moneys. When he returned I accounted for the moneys. I asked him to settle up, but ho would not. He brought a wife back with him. He wanted me to stop on, but I told him I Could not, as my health was failing. One Sunday in November he came to my place. I fancied he was drunk and would not let him in. On the Monday morning I gave him the books. Mr Peryman had received all the money from time to time when I had any to spare. I paid myself my wages at the rate of £4O a year. He made no objection to that, because when he left he told me that I could use any money that I wanted. When he was going away I did not trouble him about the four years’ wages then due, because he was in bad health. Only three days before he quarrelled with me he said everything would be made right. He has paid me nothing on account of those four years and a month. Cross-examined by Mr Izard: Defendant was not married. 1 could not say that I was living with him as a wife, as I had a husband. I suppose I was living with him. My husband was not living with me. Mr Grabau was at one time in partnership with my husband. I don’t know any case my husband had before against Mr Grabau. I quarrelled with my husband only when he was in liquor. I think defendant took all he had with him to Germany. I gavßa good deal of money to Mr Peryman. There was a good profit on the farm while I managed it. There was no written agreement for wages. Mr Grabau told me to trust him, and I did. He paid me £2OO. He could pay me no more. 1 lent him £SO when he was going away. I could not say how much my clothing cost. Whenever I wanted money he gave it me. He paid for the house I built. That was part of the £2OO. I could not say exactly how much I deducted for my wages while defendant was in Germany. I think all I deducted was £l9 12s. Mr Peryman gave me a cheque for £SB 12s. I asked, I think, for£77*l4s. That was all I claimed from Mr Peryman. After Mr Peryman gave me the cheque, I sent the bill for what Mr Grabau owed me before he went to Germany. T told Mr Peryman that Mr Grabau said I was to get the money. Mr Grabau had said nothing to me about it. During the eleven years X may have lived with my husband, my husband never objected to my going to Mr Grabau’s. My husband is here, and can say whether he approved of it or not. When I left Mr Grabau, he came after me and made me come back. I had no home to go to. My husband was living at the Tai Tapu most of the time.

Be examined by Mr Joynt: I told Mr Grabau I was going to Mr Peryman for a cheque for my wages, and he made no objection. The £2OOI received before defendant went away was for wages. It was in my opinion for wages. When he went away to Germany he told the trustees that if anything should happen to him they should provide for me. 1 suppose he meant that they should pay what he owed me. The trustees were Mr Feryman and Mr Mengels. I heard him say that. To Mr Izard: There was a will made. I was not to have the property, only what was owing to me. John Mengels, farmer, of Tai Tapu, deposed: I remember defendant leaving for Germany; A few days before that he came and asked me if I would be one of his trustees. I consented. He instructed us that if anything happened to him Mrs Klaus should have enough to provide for her for life. The lawyer had told him not to make the will too long. To Mr Izard: Nothing was said about wages. Airs Klaus was not present, to my knowledge, but I told her what he had said. Mrs Klaus and defendant were living together. Plaintiff’s wife went by the name of Mrs Klaus.

To Mr Joynt: lam not aware of any occasion when the plaintiff’s wife was present at any conversation 1 had with defendant. This was the case for the plaintiff. Mr Izard called

John Grabau, farmer of Tai Tapu, the defendant, who deposed: I know the plaintiff’s wife. She came to me. Her husband “pulled me up to Court” for taking away his wife. There was no engagement for her services. /I was found guilty of taking her away, and I kept her as my wife.' She sent no account to me for wages till I returned froin Germany, Nothing was ever said about wages. I gave her £2OO out of good-will, because we were going to part. We had quarrelled, and that would

pay for the house which she -was going to build. I was married when I came back, and there was a bit of a row between me and Mrs Klaus. The accounts she took to Mr Peryman she held up to me, and said one was for her and ore for the servant man. I did not look at them. I did not ask her what her account was fo-. She said, “ This is for Mac, and this is for me.” I kept her as my wife. She persuaded me. We arranged that we should live together. Mr Klaus was living in the neighbourhood. He never claimed any wages from me. His name was mentioned on the summons. He was living close to my house. My house had three rooms, one a sitting-room, one a bedroom, and the third a lean-to. Klaus was my partner in a farm at first. Mrs Klaus left me once, but I don’t know where she stayed then. When I paid her £200,1 told her I would never pay her' any more money. Crofs-examined: The £2OO was paid at different times. I believe £BO odd was for the carpenter. The remainder I gave her at one time in cash. The carpenter’s money I paid by little and little. I swear positively that nothing was ever said about paying her £3O or £4O a-year. She did the work of the house, but was not always there. I would have paid her for the time I was away, out of my own good will, but not as wages. She is very free with her money. She earned money as a midwife while she was with me, I don’t know what she did with that money —spent it in drink perhaps. The Court I was ‘ pulled up to ” was the Supreme Court. I believe I had to pay some £4O odd. She had not been long with me then. She told me at first that her husband had gone to Wellington, and would not come again. X told people that she was living with, me as my wife. A good many called her Mrs Qrabau. She did not ask me for the £2OO, but only complained that she had no money. She was satisfied then.

Be-examined ; We were going to separate when I gave her the £2OO. The house was for her to live in. I don’t think she has been living with her husband there, Henry William Peryman, deposed : I am a farmer at Tai Tapu. * I know the defendant. I recollect his going to Germany some years ago. I think I saw him and Mrs Klavs together with reference to the management of the farm during his absence. The arrangement was that she was to give me the proceeds of the farm and I was to disburse by means of cheques. She never received any / wages from me during defendant’s absence. I have no recollection of any instructions as to providing for Mrs Klaus in case of defendant’s death. There may have been such instructions. After defendant’s return the plaintiff came to me, and said she was to be paid £SB 12s. She said that defendant had told her to get it from me. She demanded a cheque for £8 16$ for the servant man, and said that £7B odd were due to her, but she had £l9 16s in hand. She said she had Mr Grahau’s authority, and I paid her without further trouble. She claimed it for superintending the farm. I knew the parties for several years. I believe they were living together. Mrs Klaus has since been living in a cottage built upon the Wesleyan Chapel Eeserve. I am a trustee for the chapel. The trustees gave her permission to build the cottage on the land, on condition that she keeps the chapel clean. Cross-examined: I had nothing to do with Mr Grabau’s affairs before he went to Germany.

William Klaus deposed : Grabau took my wife away from me, and promised her £3O a year. He threatened that if I came near his house he would put a gun into me. I fetched her away a couple of times. The last time was more than 10 years ago. My “ missus ” told me that Grabau would give her £4O a year. I could not speak English and had no money, so could not prevent him taking my wife away. I always spoke to my wife when I met her. I never claimed wages from Grabau either for myself or my wife. Cross-examined: I thought my wife was living with Grabau only as his servant. His Honor: The * witness .must have thought servants were very scarce if it was necessary to take such energetic exertions to secure one as he has deposed. lie-examined: She could not live with him when she was married to me. How could she have two “mans?”

Learned counsel, on either side, having addressed the Court,

His Honor said that it was with much regret that he would have to give judgment in favour of the defendant. There was no doubt that the contract was an immoral one. The judgment, therefore, would be for the defendant, but certainly not “with costs.” The Court then adjourned till 11 o’clock this morning.