SUPREME COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume IV, Issue 59, 12 March 1869, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS. [Before liis Honor Mr. Justice Richmond.] Yesterday. "j. t. mackay v. morse, (continued.) Mr. Pitt opened the case for the defendant, and called N. G. M orse, who stated— ln October, 1866, 1 engaged plaintiff as manager, nothing -was 'said at the time about my selling the run, but there was shortly after. I sold the run during his first year of service. Plaintiff came to rayhouse about 2nd October, when I told him I had sold the run. He said he had heard that, and he was glad of it. I told him delivery would have to be given about Ist November, and I should expect him to get the sheep mustered by that time. He replied that it was unreasonable to expect him to muster at his own expense, as it was so near the expiration of his time. I told him I expected him to muster the sheep ariy time I pleased. He said it would cost him over £20, and I said I would give him £10 towards it. He said, how about delivering the stragglers after the Jst November? I replied we must make some arrangement about that, and I offered to give him the same wages that 1 had done before he became my yearly servant, that was £2 a week, aud Ito pay all his expenses. To this he agreed, He asked me who was going to manage the run. I said I did not know, but I thought Mr. Cogle was- He asked me if I heard of any thing that would suit him, would I let him know. The £2 a week and expenses that I promised to give him, I considered in lieu of the original agreement. The next time he went to the run was about the first week in December, and he returned to the Waimea early in January. He did not go back to the run until the first week in March. The next time I saw him was on the 26th March at Manuka Island. He was driving some sheep down for me. I told him I wanted Mm to go to Blenheim with me as a witness in a case I had there. I said I would take the risk of the sheep reaching Nelson safely. I did not then formally discharge him nor have I ever done so, I have never given him any notice. He came back with me to Nelson. On the way I told him he had better apply to Major Richmond for the management of his run. He never complained of my having dismissed him. The first intimation I got from him on the subject was on2nd April when he sent in his account. I told him I could not settle with him until I had got in all the accounts. In June I told him I had received all the accounts and was prepared to square up with him. I objected to paying in lieu of a quarter's notice. I said there are many things here I am not obliged to pay, but I will give yon £150. He refused, and I afterwards withdrew the offer. It was not "necessary for him in taking delivery of the stragglers to employ more than one man. Among the disputed accounts are two orders for cutting firewood for the station. I never authorised his making such a

contract. I never offered to pay £50 as a compensation for breach of agreement. Cross-examined: I recollect telling Mackay to deliver the station horse to Mr Cogle. lam certain I made a verbal offer of £2 a week which I afterwards repeated in writing. On Ist June I objected, to several items in the account. I am quite positive I never offered £50 as a compromise for want of "a quarter's notice. I offered a sum of £150 in full payment for all his demands. Ec-examined : I never admitted to Mackay that I had broken our agreement, or that I had dismissed him. lam quite positive of this. Frederic Blundell sworn : I reside at Waimea West, I know plaintiff and. defendant, and. that the latter was managing the former's run in the Wairau. I have had several conversations with defendant, on one occasion he spoke to me about his engagement with plaintiff, and shortly before his final delivery he told me that the sooner he had done with Mr Morse the better as he had an offer of a run in Canterbury. I understood from him that his engagement with Mr Morse would terminate after the final delivery.' Mr Pitt and Mr Conolly then addressed the jury, and the Judge having summed up, the jury retired, and after an absence of an hour and 20 minutes returned a verdict for the plaintiff for £271 11s. 2d.