ARROW POLICE COURT.
(Before Richmond Beetham, Esq., R.M.) June 12, 1863. Clements v. King, and King v. Clements.— These were cross-actions between Mr. Clements, late of the Post Office Hotel, and Mrs. King, his barmaid. In the first case the plaintiff claimed £l7 14s. 6d. for goods delivered. Defendant pleaded a set off for wages due, being the amount claimed in the second action. His Worship therefore gave judgment for the plaintiff, and proceeded to tryKing v. Clements.—Action for £9105., balance of wages. Mrs. King, sworn~l was engaged by the defendant, on the 9th March last, as barmaid. He was to pay me £5 10s. a week. The agreement was for six months, it was signed at Dunedin. On the 9th May he discharged me. I claim, under the agreement, £49 10s.—nine weeks' wages at £5 10s. I have received £4O. By Defendant—l cannot produce the bill you gave when I left. 1 did not accept £4O to leave your service, in lieu of all demands. By the Court.—l was engaged by agreement. I cannot produce it, because Mr. Clements took it out of my purse one day and destroyed it. Mr. Clements, sworn—Mrs. King agreed to leave. We had transactions afterwards for goods to some considerable amount, and I received her cheque for a balance due. The bill I asked her to produce is a statement of account which would show how matters stood. I engaged Mrs. King for six months. I found after a short time she did not suit me, and I asked her to leave, she said she would go for £SO, then £45, and eventually agreed to accept £4O. I consider her wages at that time would have amounted to £3B 10s. This was on May 4th. She was about the place afterwards for some four or five days. Mr Emery, sworn —I am a coach-driver in the service of the defendant. I remember a conversation between Mrs. King and defendant with respect to her leaving his employment. I heard her offer to go on certain terms. She said first she would have £l5O, then came down to £SO. The defendant then offered her £4O, saying if she did not iaccept it he would settle the thing by clearing out or otherwise, as she did not suit him at all. The plaintiff then agreed to take the £4O. I did not see the money paid. By Plaintiff. —I was present at the conversation related to. Plaintiff.—lt is false.
The Court.—Ask what question you like, but you must not use that language in court; prove the witnesses's statements false by cross-exami-natitn of yonr case. I shall not allow you to charge them in any way with perjury. Defendant re-examined by the Court.—The engagement was made about March 9th, but it was understood that wages were not to commence until the plaintiff arrived in the township. This was on the 16th. The cheque I gave her to settle up this matter was on May Bth. She then had more goods from me, and commenced the account referred to in my former residence. His Worship—l consider Mrs. King entitled to her wages from 16th March to the Bth May inclusive, the day on which she received the cheque in settlement of account. Verdict accordingly for £3. Dollimore v. Bond.—Mr. Hodge, solicitor (by his clerk) conducted the case for plaintiff, who claimed possession of a boat now being used as a ferry boat at Arthur's Point, on the Shotover. Plaintiff stated that he gave a bond to defendant payable on the 16th inst., but tUat he had seized the property for which the bond was given, and refused to give up possession. Defendant stated that he took possession in consequence of plaintiff having called a meeting of his creditors after he took the bond and that the creditors had handed the boat over to him.
This the plaintiff denied, stating that it was arranged at the creditors' meeting, providing he could find a friend who would pay the bond upon its becoming due, he should be allowed to hold the boat, and to this the defendant agreed. Defendant then asked for an adjournment of the case until Tuesday next, when he would bring the trustees of the estate to prove that he got the property from them. Mr. Beetham granted the adjournment, but ordered that Dollimore should have possession of the boat in the meantime, having remarked during the hearing of the case that if defendant took the boat from the creditors the defendant had no right to hold the bond.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/LWM18630617.2.4
Bibliographic details
Lake Wakatip Mail, Volume I, Issue 14, 17 June 1863, Page 3
Word Count
762ARROW POLICE COURT. Lake Wakatip Mail, Volume I, Issue 14, 17 June 1863, Page 3
Using This Item
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.