MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Manawatu Standard, Volume LV, Issue 231, 28 August 1935, Page 12

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

CIVIL CLAIMS. The case was concluded in the Magistrate’s Court, yesterday, before Mr J. Li. Stout, S.M., in winch the Associated Society of Railway Servants claimed £l4 13s 6d trom \V. O’Donnell, formerly secretary of the Palmerston North branch of the society, and in which defendant made a coun-ter-claim lor £l2 10s 2d.

On being recalled, S. M. Thomson stated in evidence that there was no record in the register of the payment of the 10s referred to earlier in the hearing (for which a receipt signed by deiendant was produced). That closed the case for plaintiff, with the exception of the hearing of one witness who was due to arrive later. Mr Ongley submitted that the only matter in dispute was an item, £2 17s (a section of the total claim). It was only fair that defendant should be paid for the work he had done, lie had acted as secretary for one quarter, had done collecting work and clerical work later. Tlieie was no dispute about the correctness of the amount of £l4 13s (id except for the £2 17s. The only matter of relevance placed before the Court had been the payment of the 10s. Thus the claim on the £2 17s section of the whole should be reduced by 10s—to £2 7s. Defendant said in evidence that he had been the secretary of the branch for 18 or 19 years. The March and June balance-sheets of last year had been late in going to headquarters. The reason for the first lateness had been that ho had had a large amount of work to do at his house following an earthquake, and the A.S.R.S. business had been perforce “allowed to slip.” The reason for the second lateness had been late payments of dues. If the 10s had not been entered in the register it had been an unintentional oversight. The amount in the bank was shown as the sum there when the balance-sheet was made up, even though it was late. Giving evidence for plaintiff, Archie George Burrows said he would dispute being in arrears of 6s 6d as had been alleged. Witness produced receipts showing that he had not been in arrears, one being signed by S. M. Thomson, a collector. Recalled again, S. M. Thomson said he had never failed to hand the money lie collected to the secretary. He said that the addition in the register was wrong.

The Magistrate remarked that he did not think that defendant had had the 6s 6d personally. A mistake had been made. He would not allow that item, it being another part of the £2 17s.

In giving his judgment, the Magistrate said that he could allow only 10s of the £2 17s as having been received and not accounted for, leaving £l2 6s 6d on the claim. Although there might have been some delay, all the information seemed to lie in the hands of the society and on that account the £8 11s 2d (salary from April to June), should he allowed. The society had probably been put to some expense and therefore he did not think that defendant should receive moro than £2 of the £3 19s (other salary claimed), making a total of £lO 11s 2d and leaving £1 16s 4d to be paid to the society by defendant. Each side would pay its own costs There seemed to have been a certain amount of looseness, but he did not know that the society had been acting altogether within its rules. It might be better to all parties if the rules were carried out strictly.