Resident Magistrate's Court.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XVI, Issue 4999, 9 June 1891, Page 3

Resident Magistrate's Court.

THIS DAT. (Before H. A. Stratford, Esq., R.M.) CIVIL CASES. Geo. Jones, Jun., v. G. M'Vey, claim L 6 10s 7d. Judgment by default for amount claimed, with Court costs. R. L. Rule (Oamaru Borough Council) v. Alfred Dray, claim L2 2s for rates. Judgment for amount claimed, with Court costs 7s. Wm. Boyd v. Richard Lester, claim 19s 6d. Judgment by default for amount claimed, with Court costs 6s. R. L. Rule (Oamaru Borough Council) v. Richard Duncan, claim L 4 17s 2d for rates. Defendant pleaded not indebted, and stated that Mr Wansbrough was the owner of the property, and therefore responsible for the rates. Judgment for L 4 17s 2d, with Court costs 6s. Percy Mitchell v. Thomas C. Dennison. Mr Lee (Hislop and Creagh) for plaintiff and Mr Newton for defendant. Claim Ll2 5s 7d, wages due. Defendant repudiated personal indebtedness, stating that plaintiff had been employed by him only as agent for a company. The amount claimed was not disputed, but defendant urged that the Company were liable. Percy Mitchell, surveyor, stated that he had been two years in the employ of Mr Dennison ; he had been paid at the rate of Ll5O a year for the last twenty months when employed. He was not employed regularly, but on and off. No fresh engagement was made each time he came back. He was simply sent for and paid when his work was done. On April 2nd Mr Dennison asked him to go to Maerewhenua and survey the water race. On the 7th April he saw Mr Dennison in the presence of White, a miner, from Maerewhenua, and asked what instruments he was to take. Nothing was said about White paying him. Mr Dennison had paid him for the work he had done previously on the race. He proceeded to Maerewhenua and did the work for which lie was suing. He had received a letter while at Livingstone from Mr T. C. Dennison informing him that White was responsible for his engagement. This was the first intimation he had that Mr Dennison did not consider himself responsible. He showed the letter to White. He saw Mr Dennison in company with White, but nothing was said about wages. He (plaintiff) spoke to Mr Dennison, saying White refused to accept the responsibility, and Mr Dennison said he would see White about it, as there was evidently some misunderstanding. He had seen defendant since on several occasions, and lie said that the matter would have to come before the directors of the Mountain Hut Water-race Company. To Mr Newton : He was not a licensed surveyor. As far as he remembered, when Mr Dennison sent for him he said, " I want you to go up to Maerewlienua and survey this water-race. You had better see White about it and make arrangements to go up." Defendant said nothing about White being responsible. Michael White, miner, Maerewhenua, corroborated the evidence of plaintiff. He advised Mr Dennison to pay Mr Mitchell when the question of liability arose. The work performed did not require a surveyor. Any ordinary man could have done the work. Mr Dennison was to prepare the specifications. It was necessary for him to have Mitchell's notes. Mr Dennison had not explained that he (witness) was to be responsible for Mitchell's salary.. In reply To Mr Newton, witness said he expected to get his own wages from the Company. The work had been authorised by the Company. He had told Mr Dennison that some extra levels would require to be taken, but it was not necessary to send a surveyor. If Mitchell had not gone with him he had intended to get a man from ' Livingstone. A third man had been ! engaged. He (White) engaged him. He knew of no reason why Mitchell's account should not be sent to the Company. For the defence, Mr Newton called T. C. Dennison, who stated he sent for Mr Mitchell and told liini that Mr White had undertaken the work in question himself, and was going to engage a man at Livingstone to accompany him. He suggested that Mr Mitchell should go with Mr White, as he was doing nothing, and referred him to Mr White. He (witness) mentioned more than once that the matter had been taken entirely out of his hands. He thought that White would pay Mitchell and send in a claim to the Company, He had written to Mr Mitchell disclaiming responsibility on account of a letter received from plaintiff, the tenor of which showed that plaintiff was looking to him for payment. It made no difference to him whether Mitchell went or whether White, engaged a man. He (witness) had drawn up the specification for the race without Mr Mitchell's notes. He had explained, as clearly as words could make it that he was not to be responsible for Mitchell' salary. To Mr Lee : He intended to get Mitchell to make out the specifications when he got back, and he intended to pay him for that. The Company was liable through'Mr White for Mr Mitchell's salary. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed, Ll2 5s 7d, with Court costs, 365; witnesses' expenses, 30s , and professional fee, LI Is.