LENGTHY CIVIL CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 16326, 5 September 1916, Page 5

LENGTHY CIVIL CASE.

CLAIM FOR WAGES

CONFLICT OF EVIDENCE.

INVESTIGATION NECESSARY.

Finality was reached in the Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon in connection with the hearing of the protracted civil case, in which W, A. Sims, joiner (Mr. J. R. Lundon), sought to recover from R. H. Stark, manufacturing joiner, Dominion Road (Mr. \V. A. Black), the sum of £39 19s, balance of wages alleged to be due. Mr. CC. Kettle, S.M., presided. The case lasted for 20 days.

Further evidence was given by plaiSifi with referenco to matters previously runtioned during the case, and counsel addressed the Bench.

Counsel for defendant submitted that plaintiff had failed to prove his claim, and that the credulity of his evidence was seriously in question. His wild allegations reflecting on defendant, said counsel, had not been supported by evidence. Counsel left it to the magistrate to decide what credence could be placed on plaintiff's evidence concerning certain cheques and receipts produced. Mr, Lundon contended that the books and time-sheets produced proved conclusively that defendant owed plaintiff the amount claimed. Counsel challenged the veracity of numerous statements made by Stark with reference to documents produced, and intimated to the Court that ho had strongly advised his client to prosecute Stark for alleged perjury. Mr. Black (interposing): Mr. Sims will never tako criminal proceedings. You can rely on that. Continuing, counsel for plaintiff said the disposal of the joinery mentioned in the case and other extraneous matter did not affect the claim for wages. The magistrate remarked that the case had occupied an unconscionable length of feme. This was due to' a number of factors, including the muddled state in which defendant had kept his books. After commenting on the risk of employers and others paying money without obtaining receipts, and saying that onethird of the litigation that took place was due to careless business methods, the •magistrate said neither the plaintiff's documentary evidence nor the defendant's books was satisfactory. He would find considerable difficulty in arriving at the truth in the action. Proceeding, Mr. Kettle said that during the course of the case he had observed that the most "deliberate, wilful, wicked and corrupt perjury" must have been committed by one Bide or the other, or by both. The plaintiff charged the defendant with perjury and forgery, and the defendant accused the plaintiff of forgery, perjury, teeft and fabrication of evidence. Mr. Kettle said he would postpone his decision until steps were taken by one of tho parties to prosecute the other. If private proceedings were not taken it would bo his duty to place tho matter in the bands of the police. Ho ordered the exhibits to be impounded.