(Before his Honor Sir George Amoy, Chief Justice.) Thb Chief Justice entered Court at eleven o’dock yesterday, when the civil business was proceeded with. Date or Hkabimo—Spkcial Casks. The hearing- of the case of Henry Robt, Russell v. George Perkin was fixed for Friday first; and the cases of Henry l.owson Brewer v. Robert James Creighton, and Alex. Mill v. John Cawley Motrin and William Baker, for Friday week. Comm >n Jobt Casks. M'LEOD Y VICKKRT AND MASEFISLD. Mr. Gillies, tor defendant, applied for a postponement of the hearing of this action until Tuesday next; the principal- wituess for the lendant was engineer on board a steamer, which was expected to arrive at this port on Sun.lay. The Court acceded to the application. WILLIAM HUNTER AND OKORSS OBNNKTT ▼. PETER STORBIBR MACKENZIE In this action the plaintiffs sought to recover £72 ss. 6d , money alleged to be due. The dif .ndaut confessed judgment, and by the direction of the Judge the jury gave a verdict for the full amount. DRAKE V. THB AUCKLAND CLUB. Mr. Brookfield appeared as counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wynn for the defendants. This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Hecor Alexander Drake, against the defendants, George Friend, James Willia uson, John Harris Rogers Harrison, anti Francis Eastwood Campbell, for the recovery of £IOO, alleged to be due. The circumstances upon which the action was grounded were these. About the 22nd of July the plaintiff was engaged us manager and secretary of the Auckland Club, for a term of six months, at a salary of £6O for the period of service. A part of the arrangement entered into with the plaintiff was, that at the expiration of the above term, if the club should be in a flourishing condi don, he was to be paid a fair remuneration for his services, and to be re-engaged tor similar periods, namely, for six months. At the termination of the first sis months the plaintiff received no payment whatever, and ho continued to act in his capacity as secretary and manager. The 22nd July, 1864, arrived, am! the plain tlu still continued to act, nothing whatever being said to him by the defendants respecting payment, increase of salary, or anything else. He was allowed to go on in his capacity for a fortnight or thereabouts, in the second year, when he received notice from some members of the club, that his service.s were no longer required. Plaintiff naturally felt agrieved at being thus d smissed. On the Bth of August following the plaintiff received a letter from the committee of management, in which was enclosed a cheque for £l5O in full consideration of his services. Plaint.ff refused to accept the cheque in full liquidation of the services he had rendered, and wrote a letter to the committee of management, informing them that he would at once institute legal proceedings for the recovery of what he considered was justly owing to him. The defendants refused to give the defendant a greater amount than that enclosed in their letter to the plaintiff, and consequently the action. The Chief Jqgtics ; I suppose the first issue will be admitted ? Mr, Wynn : Of coarse. The defendants are members of the club only. The Chief Justice : Yes ; members of the society. Mr. Brookfield : Perhaps it would be better at once to give documental evidence of the rules and regulations of the club. The Chief Justice : Are there any of those rules that affect the case ? Mr. Brookfield:.Yes, your Honor, 23rd rule. [The rules and regulations of the club, a letter to the plaintiff, dated 22nd July, 1863, and signed by James Williamson and George Friend; a letter of date, Bth August, 1864, addressed from the members of the managing committee to the plaintiff; copy of a letter addressed by the plaintiff to the committee of management, dated 9th August, 1864, were handed into court by Mr. Brookfield, and read over to the jury by the Registrar ] Hector Alexander Drake, sworn, and examined by Mr. Brookfield: I am tbe plaintiff in this action. I recollect being engaged in the service of the Auckland Club, on the 22nd 'July, 1869; I was engaged for six mouths at a salary of £6O. By Mr. Wynn: The engagement was in writing, signed by two members.
Examination continued : There was no contract signed by me. The engagement I entered into was, that I was to be engaged for six months at a salary of £6O. The engagement was entered into in Auckland. I saw Messrs. Williamson and Friend at the club. I told him that Dr. Dalliston had said to me, “ Will you become secretary of the club ?”, and that I said, “ Tea ” I believe I asked them whether they assented to my being appointed secretary, or something of that kind. Messrs. Williamson and Fiiend did not sign the agreement at that time. On a subsequent occasion (the 22nd July, 1863) the engagement was signed by them. I told them 1 had better hare a written authority from them to act as Secretary. [Letter dated the Club, 22nd July, 1863, and addressed to the plaintiff by James Williamson and George Friend, acquainting him that at a meeting of the committee ot management held on the previous day, it was agreed that he should be appointed secretary, handed to witness and read over to the jury.] I entered upon my duties as secretary and manager of the club on the 22nd July, of thereabouts. 1 remained in that capacity until the Ist ot August, 1864. That was a year and some ten days after my first engagement. During that time the defendants, Messrs. Williamson, Friend, Harrison, and Dalliston, were members of the Club. I believe Dalliston was not a member of the committee of management. 1 received no salary up to the Ist of August, 1864. At that time I was summarily dismissed by Harrison, Campbell, and Friend. They assigned no cause for my dismissal, but simply told me to go. Those three gentlem n were at that time members of the managing committee. They sent for me in the club house. I went to them in consequence ot their message, and saw them all together in a room. Captain Harrison asked me to show a report that had been laid before a general meeting. I showed him the report, and Captain Harrison said, “ You leave this day week.” They were all sitting together, and Captain Harrison was the spokesman. I wished to know why I was so summarily dismissed, and said also that I did not think I could procure a house within that time. I was then residing in the club house. 1 do not think there was anything said about my being found at the time of engagement. I left on the Ist of August in eonse* quence of that notice. On the Ist of August I had a conversation with the four defendants in my room, relative to the terms of my hire. I ■ said Dr. Dalliston had arranged with me that I was to receive £6O or six months, and that after the six months was up I was to receive fair remuneration for my services if the private affairs of the club were in a better position ; and so they were. Mr. Friend said that their agreem nt with Dalliston was that I was to receive £12(1 a-yoar, which was confirmed by Mr. Williamson. They offered me £l5O on that occasion. They stated that the sum was for one year and three months’ services. I did not accept it. I had no further conversati n with them, and I immediately, left the club. The club is not in a very flourishing condition, but considerable improvement has been effected in it. I received a letter on the Bth of August, with which was enclosed a cheque for £l5O. [Letter handed to witness and read out to the jury.] I did not accept the cheque in fnll of all claims. I kept the cheque. 1 sent a reply to the committee of management, a copy of which I have in my possession, [Reply alluded to read to the jury.] I acknowledged the receipt of the cheque for salary, but not, as the committee of management stated, in fnll liquidation thereof. In my reply I said I would immediately take legal proceedings for' the recovery of the fnll amount of my salary owing me by the club. Since the date of my reply, I have not received any further sum of money from the committee of management. Cross-examined by Mr. Wynn : I have not got the cheque in my pocket. 1 cashed it, and it is in the bank. When I was dismissed there were four defendants present. Campbell, Harrison, and Friend were present on the 25th July. Mr. Williamson was not present, nor was he at that time a member of the committee of management. On one occasion I endeavored to get a situation at the club before
Iwm tnniw). Dr. Oallistba mi, I believe, a personal friend of min*. * To the beat of my recollection, I never asked him to use Sis influence to get me • situation at the dab. I told the committee th t Dr. Dalliston bad en* gaged me for m* months at~£6o. and that if the club floarishe) I was to receive fail remuneration after that time. The dob had not got any balance at the bankers. When I entered the dub there was a small balance in ita favor. The dab was not in a very flourishing position when I left it, bat it was improving daily. In the report drawn up by the three gentlemen I have named, there were a great many unaccountable complaints made. I showed the report to Mr. Jackson, solicitor. He mentioned that I had done so to Major Campbell. lie-examined by Mr. Book field ; The dab was in a better financial position daring my management than whan I first took the situation. This being plaintiff's case,
Mr. Wynn proceeded to address the j.iry for his clients. There was nothing, he contended, in the hiring which wonld entitle the plaintiff to receive any notice when his services were not farther required : the hiring had not been a yearly one, and if it had been, no damage was proved to have been sustained by the plaintiff. But, on the contrary, the engagement was not specific, and it was therefore optional with the 'dub to terminate or renew the engagement at pleasure. Or. Da'baton was not a member of the managing committee, and such being the case, the dab was not responsible for any engagement he might have entered into
J. S. M'Farlane, examined hy Mr. Wynn : lam a merchant, residing at Auckland I remember the Auckland Club. I know the plaintiff. He was residing at the dab about n year, I was a member of the club when the plaintiff first went to take his abode there I know Dr. Dailiston. Dr. Dalliston and the plaintiff frequently called upon me to get the latter appointed as secretary or manager. Several other kinds of employment were pointed out. I have been off and on the committee of management. The club owed five or six hundred pounds at the time of the plaintiff’s appointment, but the assets exceeded that amount. The state of the dqh was very an* satisfactory during the ti~i6 the pljiltiff MrU manager. It was proposed that the members should give £IOO each to keep the dub going. The plaintiff, proposed to put down £IOO, and that led to an investigation of the dab. Shortly afterwards he was dismissed.
Mr. vfynn asked the witness, whet the cause of the plaintiff’s dismissal was, to which Mr. Brookfield objecte i. Examination resumed : The result of the investigation was the dismissal of the plaintiff! The club was not in such a position as to enable it to continue, and some members suggested a change of management. Cross-examined by Mr. Brookfield ; There was a proposal made that the members of the club should pay £IOO to enable the club to gd on. That occurred about three or four months previous to the dismissal of the plain aff. The suggestion was not reduced to writing. J am not aware that anyfciiig wu put down in writIn -S huont the proposal that members should phy £IOO each. I urged the proposal. Anothef proposal was made that the plaintiff should receive £2OO a year, from the commencement of August, 1863 I agreed to the proposal. [Document on which the proposal was written and signed by the witness, with a recommendation that it should be adopted, together.vrith other propositions, read to the Jury by the registrar.] Captain Harrison deposed : I am a member ,of the Auckland Club. I recollect the plaintiff being isecretary of the club. I, together with others, made an investigation into the state of the club, which at the time the plaintiff Was employed was in a very unsatisfactory condition. The result of the investigation was that Drake was dismissed. Mr. Biookfield replied to the evidence, and The Chief Justice summed up. The Jury retired, and shortly afterwards returned into Court with a verdict for the plaintiff, £3O. K'unoa r, sDLwvaw. In this action (which was undefended) the plaintiff sought to recover £672 4s M balance alleged to be due for a schooner built by the plaintiff for defendant. The plait'tiff examined :lam a shipbuilder, residing in Mechanics’ Bay, Auckladd I know Daniel Sullivan. He lives in Dunedin. In 1863 I entered into an agreement to build a schooner brig for him. The schooner was to be 75 feet on keel, 19 feet' beam, and 7 feet# inches in depth. I built the vessel according to agreement, and gave her to Sullivan. Ha has taken her away. Her tonnage was ISfi tons. The price of the vessel, according to agreement, is £1,335. I supplied four oars extra, and a figure-head, and other things. Tba defendant is now indebted to me in the sum of £672 4s. The jury returned a verdict for the amount claimed. Messrs. Russell and Davy ware counsel for the plaintiff. 4 The Court adjourned at ten minutes to flra till ten o’clock this (Thursday) morning. . CIVIL SITTINGS. - The subjoined is a correct list of the cases still remaining for hearing j John ▼. William Vickery and Thomas Taylor Masefield. Plaintiff's attorneys, Messrs. Brookfield and Cox t defendants* attorney, Mr. Crawford. Hearing fixed for Tuesday next. John Trimble, sear, v. Frederick' Mosheim. Plaintiff’s attorneys, Messrs. Brookfield and Cox ; defendant’s attorney, Mr. Weston. John Trimble, junr. v. Frederick Mosheim. Plaintiff’s a-torneys, Messrs. Brookfield and Cox ; defendant’s attorney, Mr. Weston. Henry Robert Rossdll v. George Perkin. Plaintiff’s attorneys, Messrs. Whittaker and ! Russell ; defendant’s attorney, Mr. Beveridge. Hearing fixed for to-morrow; special jury. John Boloos v. Christopher Maxwell Plaintiff ’a attorneys, Messrs. Whittaker and Kus-. sell; defendant’s attorneys, Messrs. Bussell and Davy. John London v. Robert Graham. Plaintiffs, attorneys, Messrs. Wynn and Leaiy; defendant’s attorney, Mr. Brookfield. Henry Lowson Brewer v. Robert James Creighton.. Plaintiff’s attorneys, Messrs. Wynn and Leary ; defendant’s attorney, Mr. Brookfield. Hearing fixed for Friday,. SSrd instant; special jury. . William Bacon v. Samuel Cochrane. Plaintiff’s attorneys, Messrs. Wynn aad Leary ; defendant’s attorney, Mr. Whittaker. Murdoch Ross v. Alexander MeGtegor. Plaintiff’s attorneys, Meters. Wynn and,Leary; defendant’s attorney, Mr. Beveridge. Alexander Mill v. John Carsloy Motrin and William Baker, Hearing fixed for Friday, 23rd instant; special jury. \ Henry Edgecombe v. Wm. Edgecombe. James Crnikshsnk and James Smart r Matthew Reid.' ■ !< Elisa Birch Gray v. Heron, David, and Co, POLICE COURT— Wednesday, (Before J. H. Horne,Esq., J. P. Chairman, and T. P. Kidd, Esq , J.P.) DatrtncßKircM.—One case of drunkenness was disposed of in the ntnal manner. Bbbach or Ikpochdino Act.—L. D. Halton and James Bray were each charged with a breach of the Impounding Act. They pleadedguilty, and were fined ss. aad costs.
Permanent link to this item
SUPREME COURT., New Zealander, Volume XXII, Issue 2456, 15 June 1865
SUPREME COURT. New Zealander, Volume XXII, Issue 2456, 15 June 1865
Using This Item
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Auckland Libraries.