CLAIM AGAINST HON J. CARROLL.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1247, 23 January 1896, Page 38

CLAIM AGAINST HON J. CARROLL.

A NONSUIT ENTERED. Among the cases in the Magistrate’s Court Dii Friday was one in which Robert Ahern sued the Hon J. Carroll for balance of salary due to plaintiff in his capacity of private secretary. Mr Young appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Gully for the defendant. Mr Gully urged that the plaintiff was a clerk in the Government employ, and that the claim should have been brought against the Government. His Worship decided to go on with the case. Plaintiff said he was first employed in May, 1894, by the defendant as private secretary, and continued to occupy that position until December, when defendant told him to remain in charge of his room. He did so, and during Mr Carroll’s absence he forwarded and received telegrams, &c., to and from his employer. He remained in charge of Mr Carroll’s room until February 12th. Witness was paid up to December 22nd. To Mr Gully: He did not consider he was only to act for Mr Carroll until the latter left Wellington. He considered he was to act under Mr Carroll’s instructions. Ho was not informed about December 20th by Mr Hamer that his services would no longer be required as far as Mr Carroll was concerned, but that if possible any further work would bo put in his way. He had no intimation from Mr Carroll that his services would not be required after the end of December. The payments made to him by Mr Carroll were not loans, but payments on account. Hon J. Carroll, the defendant, called by Mr Young, said when ho first left Wellington lie told plaintiff their connection had ceased, but be would do what he could for him if there was anything further for him to do. Witness asked for the use of his office, which witness granted, and told witness that if ho could oblige him in any way he would do so. He posted witness papers and correspondence, and cut out extracts from newspapers and entered them into a scrap-book. Witness also telegraphed him to forward some deeds. He was not employed by witness at all. When witness returned Ahern told him he could not get a vouchor settled, that during his absence lie had done workfor other departments, which he expected to be paid for, and witness certified to the voucher. On March 6, witness again impressed on Ahern that their connection had ceased, but thought he gave him certain wrappers to address. Ahern always made use or bis office, but from the time he recommended the final payment on February 28th Ahern bad certainly not been in his employ. The £6 lie gave plaintiff on July 6th was purely a friendly matter, and not on account of his claim. Ahern said he was in want of money. Witness said he would rather remove any claim plaintiff had against the Government out of his own pocket, if ho could not get it any other way, but Ahern said he would not have him do that. To Mr G-ully : Until quite recently he had always understood plaintiff’s claim was against the Government. This closed the case tor the plaintiff. Mr Gully, for the defendant, asked for a nonsuit, contending that Mr Ahern's appointment was a Government appointment, and was regarded as such throughout its continuation. An action of this kind ought to be brought against the Crown, and defended by the Crown. Mr Young said he would accept a nonsuit and proceed against the Government. His Worship entered up a nonsuit, and made no order as regarded costs. Mr Gully said ho wonld give every facility to enable the case to be brought against the Government.