SUPREME COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 11686, 20 March 1900, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

•] ■;■ : •:-.;..CIVIL:SWINGS." V-; ■'"">- .-. ; ! l%ii '.- .. Mo'siJATj/MiBCH 19." :" ■;■' His-Honor: Mr Justice Williams and :""': :'. -'.■"■''•■' •; a Jury of Four.) . .-■ ■■■'•, . : DIjS C-P M^ E«Olt-V. it'GEEOOB. "■' V 11"-?- —V dPman ("istructed by Mr Mal;colm_MacdonMd) appeared for:the plaintiff' defenluif "n> WU '■"n Mr Mouat> for., the "The .statetttot'of: claim, set 'out- that on November 23, 1887, hired plafn titt as a .shepherd at the salary of £6U per annum, and the defendant' continued in such ■position until February^ 1891, -except- toi-an absence of eight weeks in the year 1889 Ori fe 6£ £m PaPagel' Of 1 shee P run at the salary_bt ±,80 per annum. From the said dates unt^ecmnbor 25 .1896,; the plaintiff senS the defendant as his .shepherd, :and then as SSer^lus sheep run. . The defendant h<£ ", of ?he " '■ made P^'nents ori account ing balance di.ehim on account of'his Ja»es doin- f^M ent. of clrfence slateri that"the defendant d.d not at any time hire the plainbrot oranu ■°aPa«t3'^Tlr e defendant and his earr pT h"" 1" ?* Gre«or < sin^ deceased), earned on the business of gold mininp- and farming at Dumbarton Rock, O~ S The plamtifF^is a nephew of the defendant, who came out from .Scotland to visit'his uncles and resided and lodged/with them; and was provided by them, with board, lodging, and other necessaries up to the time of the death of Alexander M'Grcrxor, and in return for ?uch board and lodging assisted in tlie farm work, but the plaintiff usually employed himself in Afui If alKl.r%tameH: .his own earnings, tiff ZJ\ 7 a- et M CT regOr's death the Pfemtor Tn fV^ I 3"" ot\ defena™t, "s administrator in the deceased's, estate,' for £5 be'in^ balance due to him for wages, but Ms c " c ? been 'IS^n Y fendaut to Pl?™^ had not Deen given to him as wages, but simolv in li^vL' lO T r tU? ] f Mf SSaT S W P^™Sr and His wife.' Ihe defendant denied havinsr nndp btoSS^?' ent WUh • tho-P.l« inW but hfd "nTy treated: him as a near relation! He further tho1, 1 the plaintiff altogether the sum. of £39* 15s, .not £277 15s, as set forth m the plaintiff's statement. The defendant also relied upon the statute for the limitation1 otacaous and proceedings as a defence to the

c^e 1' '^£F mSVV I' eni.nF tlie j!)C^ of th ° case, -said that • the ,: defendant and his brother Alexander (since deceased) were two old men who had a farm and sheep run at Xf»ni f' °a ed Upon llis uncles> and the defendant agreed to employ him, telling him he would give him better wages than he could get elsewhere The plaintiff immediately stt to work ploughing. For years nothing out of he ord.nai-y toofc.place. The nephew did the 1891 plaintiff began to receive money on ac-count-of the wages due to him, but the money was paid irregularly, and in various snrnY' Ao receipts were -given, but the plaintiff's ffi c™^ W « «»« block of tricheques J.he ..work learned counsel said,'.proved to lun o been done in .a satisfactory manner inS to consist, of things, which were'neceSy " connection with the management and workinc.of the sheep run As to the statement of defence, it would lie found that some of the a legations were wholly mythical, and that others were quite untrue. All the plaintiff asked-was that, the jury shoulcl givU m tnf same wage^tbat. he could have obtained for similar work .elsewhere. There was no attempt at overcharge. Evidence would be given,as to,the value of the plaintiff's soy vices, and to show that the defendant had always spoken well of him; and had never sug- : gested that he was useless or. a hanger-on. > : Evidence: m support of the plaintiff's case was given by Duncan M'Gregor, John Donaldson James Elliott, Joseph Kitto, E.ichard iutto, and John Sellers. .-.«.-.■ -Mr-Mouat,'in opening: the ease, said that the statements made by the plaintiff would be contradicted, and the jury would notice I Uuit durmg a 1 the years ho had been living in. the defendant's household he had- never i made any. demand for wages. The statement ot defence truly represented: the relations be,- ---' ye.ve .f n.H le Harh' es Tdnd itwas not- alleged by' plaintiff s counsel, that if that .was established: Tf JT P" I■e an ins"fficient defence in law « the.plaintiff had been, employed as stated^ tor the period ending vi 1881, he could not ha\e been, entitled to .more than £M) a yeir m, l-tT-'' *60 P^ year. Then, from IHBI plamhft claimed £80 a year as manager of a. station carrying, according to his ownestimate, at the most 3000 sheep. It-was only a- station having iOCOOCr.sheep or so that wanted a manager, and numerous stations havin g] .3o,ooo or 40,000 .sheep were worked by head shepherds. At the Usual rate parable for such services the plaintiff would have"been entitled, to a sum of £235, but. the amount of .the claim,, added, tq the sums he had re^ ceivecl, would, maVe a sum of £651. THe defence was that.iihe're had been no agreement as to employment, but that plaintiff had been treated better than a son. would have been, and had received more than would lave been paid as wages for such services as he had given. No reference had beeu made to wages in connection with the money given to the plamtift. The defendant was an old man over ,76; years of. age, and the'plaintiff had waited all these years until it was-probable' the defendants facilities were to some extent Jailing, before making a claim that would leave his uncle without any support, unless he could get the old-age pension. Evidence for the defence' was given by the defendant, Archibald M'Gregor. " At 5.1S p.m. the1 further hearing of the ca«e was adjourned until/. 10.30 this (Tuesday)