RUSSELL V. THE LEVIATHAN GOLD DREDGING COMPANY.

Otago Witness, Issue 2437, 28 November 1900, Page 21

RUSSELL V. THE LEVIATHAN GOLD DREDGING COMPANY.

This case was commenced at the Civil Session of the Supreme Court on Friday, before Mr Justice Williams and a common jury. Claim, £200, damages for wrongful dismissal. Mr W. C. MacGregor appeared for the plaintiff, Murray Russell, of Dunedin, mining engineer, and Mr J. MacGregor for the defendant company. The statement of claim showed that on or about the sth September last the company employed the plaintiff as dredgemastej.- at a salary of £6 per week, and that on the 26th September *th company wrongfully discharged him. In- their statement of defence, the company stated that the plaintiff never entered their services ss dredgemaster, but that it was agreed that before entering their service he should go to Greymouth to examine and repoit on the various classes of gold-saving tables in use on the West Coast, the company to pay expenses, but that no salary was to be paid to him in respect of those services" The company admitted that they discharged the paintiff on the 26th September. As an inducement to the company to employ him as dredgemaster, the plaintiff represented to the company that certain revolving tables for gold-saving purposes, the patent rights for which were partly owned by him, could be advantageously used on, the company's

dredge, and that he had expert knowledge in the use and management of the tables. It was part of the terms of the agreement between the plaintiff and the company that the tables should be used in the dredge, and that the plaintiff should work and manage the same. Prior to the 26th September the plaintiff informed the company that the revolving tables could not be advantageously used on the dredge, but that tables of an ordinary and well-known description should be used instead, and the company then determined the plaintiff's service. It was also part cf the agreement that the plaintiff's service might be at any time determined by either the plaintiff or the company giving one week's notice to the other of them. The company brought into court the sum of £6, which they considered was sufficient to satisfy the plaintiff's claim. Murray Russell, the plaintiff, gave evidence. He ssid that Mr Broad, one of the directoi s of the company, spoke to him about entering the employ^ of the company. He said they wanted a man who thoroughly understood the working of black sand and the taking of the gold from it. He had tried to find a man who was competent to undertake such work, but he had not come across one until he n*et witness. When witness went to the West Coast he found the Leviathan claim was not "a black sand one, as it had been represented to him that it was ; and he considered Sple's patent revolving tables, in which he was himself interested, were not necessary in connection with it. He advised that Jones's tables should be used, with some alterations he thought were required. Mr Druce, the company's director on. the West Coast, agreed that Sale's tables were-not Tiecessary, and that Jones's tables should be used. Mr Magnus, of Christchurch, another dierctor, was also convinced that witness's decision was the best in the interests of the company. MiMagnus's brother had' since been appointed dredgemaster. By Mr MacGregor: Witness was oiie of the three or four students who were interested in Sale's patent revolving mats. He was not one of the original holders, but had been admitted as a matter of business, with a view to its introduction on the Leviathan claim. He had represented to the directors that the revolving tables would meet the difficulty 'on the Leviathan claim. IS; was a patent that fell in with his original ideas on the subject. It was not on that account the company engaged him. Mr Broad asked him for a copy of the patent, and witness gave it to him. At 5.40 p.m. the court adjourned until 10.30 "this (Saturday) morning.