SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 14854, 4 December 1911, Page 10

SUPREME COURT.

"' civil ; SESSIONS.' f FATHER AND SON'S ARGUMENT.

His Honor, Mr. Justice Edwards, gave his reserved judgment on Saturday morning in a civil case,' William Henry Perrott v. Watsey Henry Perrott, a claim for wages and moneys advanced. Mr. J. R. Reed appeared for plaintiff and Mr. R. McVeagh for defendant. The statement of claim alleged that in the year 1902 the parties,, who are father and son, agreed that: they would pool their earnings, arid that when a- suitable place was found they would purchase a farm and work it in partnership. It was further alleged that the plaintiff, at tho request of tho defendant, on July 21, 1903, advanced to the defendant the sum of £300; that, the defendant lent out the moneys so received for four years, and received £384 for principal and interest, with which ho purchased a farm at Eltham; and that afterwards this was sold, a farm being purchased at Waitoa, plaintiff being induced to join in. and paying to tho defendant the whole of his savings, over £377. • Plaintiff claimed judgment for £000 and interest from July 21, 1903, to the date of judgment; or, in the further alternative judgment for £300, w;th interest.from July b, 1903; judgment, for £377. With interest from March 3, 1909; and wages, at £1 10a per week, from March 3 till .judgment There was also the usual prayer for further or other relief. J, .„ . . At the previous trial at Hamilton plaintiff was given judgment for tho two several snrns of £373 17s 6d and £384 the question of the plaintiff's claim for interest upon those euros, and for remuneration tor hi« services upon tho farm being reserved for further consideration. .-;, . His Honor, on Saturday, «nd the plaintiff must- have judgment for the two several sums of £373 17s 6d and £384, and for a further sum by way of remunerationjor his services from March 4, 1909, to April 8 1911, at the rate of 25s per week,- the amount, if the parties cannot agreo upon it, to bo calculated by the registrar, and to bo submitted to 'm© for .confirmation. Tho plaintiff must also have his costs according to the ftcate on the amount recovered against the defendant.

A BAD BARGAIN. His Honor also delivered his decision in tho case of John Murchison'V. the .ship Gem. Mr. M. G. McGregor appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Prendergast for J.J.I Craiß, the owner of tho Gem. The, case ; was an Admiralty suit to recover the sum, : of £21 10s, wages alleged to bo duo to the . plaintiff as manter of the schooner. < " Z' When tho plaintiff was appointed master j of tho vessel ih© was owned by one Mc- j Gill, but she was .under tho control of one I Gillies, under an : arrangement, by which - Gillies received two-thirds of the profits ot ] her running, paying substantially the whole of the disbursements in connection therewith and McGill the remainder of such profits. Gillies was running the vessel, , but he lis, not a master manner. ihe plaintiff was therefore nominally appointed master bv Gillies, tho notice to the registrar of shipping being necessarily signed by McGilL The vessel twice changed hands'while'the' plaintiff was employed upon her, without notice to him. Eventually she came into the ownership of Mr.; Joseph James Craig, who resisted the plaintin:a claim."" The plaintiff's case was that he was employed at the wago of £10 per month. ilr,-6raig's answer was thai the plaintiff was working the vessel in conjunction with Gillies, under an arrangement by which the plaintiff and wm» divided tha profits, and that the plaintiff received from Gilhea all that was due to him, except a sum of £2 or thereabouts; that the shipowner was unaware that the plainlffllttiade any claim for wages until tec- helBAMt tha.vessel 5- jUjf*'.?*^*^^?* tiff then made an uncertain claim upon him, which he disputed; and that after some discussion he, without admitting any claim against- him, agreed to pay to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff agreed, to accept from him in full satisfaction of his claim tho : sum of £8, .which, was paid to him accordingly then* and : there. 5 . ; I His Honor was. satisfied; that: the plaintiff at the time that the money was paid to him as a compromise, and in full settlement of his claims both against the schooner and - against Mr. Craig, as her owner. On tho other hand, ho was satisfied that the'plaintiff had made out his claim for wages, and that, apart from his settlement with,;Mr.,,Craig, he was entitled to recover the amount claimed. The question to be , determined, therefore, was whether or not the plaintiff was bound .by bis settlement with Mr. Craig. Mr. McGregor, for the s plaintiff, contended: that he was not, relying upon sections 64, 77, and ' 84 and 87' of", the Merchant Shipping ,Act, 1908. The argument was that section 77 , precludes a •'■ seaman from ; contracting himself- out of his lien upon r the ship, or out of; any remedy for; the re- ' covery of his wages. In ; ;His Honor's opinion there was nothing to prevent the claim of a master against a ship, or against the owner of a ship, from being sottled in' the same manner as I a■; claim arising - under; any other contract. In the present case,. the payment to the plaintiff was not made in satisfaction of an admitted claim for a larger amount, nor did. the receipt taken by Mr. Craig comply with the enactment relied "upon. Apart from the questions raised ; under the Shipping Act, 1908, the settlement was, however, binding upon the plaintiff as- a compromise of an existing right which was boha-fide in dispute between the parties. The settlement was honestly arrived at, and there was, His Honor * held, no . ground « upon which, it could be" disregarded. The plaintiff mad© a bad bargain, but he made it with his eyes open, and with a complete knowledge of the facts, of which, on the other hand, Mr. Craig, when the J compromise waa; mado, knew ' very i little. The suit must therefore, be dhimaeed. His Honor did not think it was a case for j costs. The plaintiff had lost his wages, and Mr. Craig got the benefit 1 -of-' tho less. The defence, upon the merits, apart from the compromise, which was not set up a* a compromise, failed. -i The defence in 'law also failed, and Mr. Craig succeeded upon "a ground not taken by his counsel.

;.-".; AN APPEAL ALLOWED. His Honor delivered "verbal judgment • in the case of Police v. Hill, an appeal '.'<■■ from the decision of: Mr. Frazer, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court at Dargaville. The facts of the case wore that one Curnow, a surfaceman, employed on the railways, had gone to the lokafcofca Hotel, of which Hill is the proprietor, one Friday, in July, having a-considerable} amount of money in his possession. He ; l ; became . intoxicated, ' and had j,t6;'hi''assisted- to bed by the licensee's son. He'went away on Saturday morning, but returned during the day. After another* bout £of .' drinking, . he' had to be put to sleep on a sofa. The fact was not denied, that Curnow awoke at two a.m. next day, and" asked in a threatening manner to be supplied with liquor, which was done by the licensee himself. The drinking continued throughout ' Sunday, and on Monday Curnow was still shaky., The polico secured, a conviction' Against Hill on a chai'ge of permitting drunkenness, against which appeal was made. ■ His Honor said the appeal must be allowed. In order for the case to succeed, it was necessary to prove that drunkenness was permitted at a specific time, and this had not been done. :'..'.' Mr. Selwyn Mays appeared on behalf of the police, and "Dr. H. D. Bamford for V the appellant. ...