CLAIM AND COUNTER CLAIM.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 14051, 22 July 1916, Page 3

CLAIM AND COUNTER CLAIM.

At the Magistrate's Court this morning, Mr W. A.' Bartony 5.M.... delivered his reserved judgment in tlie case of Gnarly Taylor (Mr Coleman) v. James Glover' (Mr Nolan), a claim for '£96 9s lid forfurnishings, and a;. counter-claim, for £38 ; 7s 4d, balance . due |!or wages -and overtime, arid value of tools retailed. Tlie. defendant bad paid into Court -13s lOd in , satisfaction of tile original claim. Dealing with tlie counter-claim first, his Worship stated,: "In reference to tha counter-claim, the evidence, is most conflicting. The plahnV'ff (Glover) says that the sum of £30 Is 3d is due by the defendant (Taylor) to hiin for balance of wages between the sth December, 1913, and 6th November, 1914. He also claims the sum of £7 4s 7d !for overtime between the first of July and 29th July. 1915. There is a further claim, £1 Is 6d, for tools retained by the defendant. In respect to the wages and overtime,' the defendant says that it was his invariable '' rule to pay all his employees weekly in accorelancfc with the award regulating, his trade, and that he made no departure in the case of the plaintiff, and that his wages and overtime have been fully paid up. -The plaintiff stated that he had kept a complete record of all time worked and payments mode to him by the defendant, which he was asked to produce, and he, handed in the exhibit' B, and stated most positively that' it- was the original memo, which he e!t ---d Ifrom day to day. The first entry appearing on exhibit B is dated December §th, 1913. Counsel for defendant upon turning over the exhibit discovered that it was written upon paper, containing 'an appeal to the public from the Citizens' Defence Committee, dated 26th November, 1914, and it was therefore obvious that the entries could not have been mode on it in 1913. Upon further examination, the plaintiff was obliged to admit that this was not the original memorandum, and stated that . he did not know -what had become of • the original. With this discrepancy in the plaintiffs evidence, and looking at all the circumstances, I am not satisfied that there is any money due by the defendant foi* wages. In reference to the claim, 'for tools, I think the plaintiff is entitled to recover. Judgment accordingly for £1 Is 6d. Regarding the original claim, ins Worship stated : "In reference to the goods, it is admitted by defendant (Glover) that he received most of the goods claimed for, and the question in dispute is whether they were to be supplied at cost or retail prices, the majority being charged at retail prices. Defendant's evidence is that plaintiff (Taylor) told him that he was to have them at cost price, and no evidence has been called by the plaintiff to the contrary, and that being so I must take it that the goods were to be at cost price. I find overcharges amounting to £22 2s 6d. I disallowed the claim of £1 5s for chest of drawers as defendant says he did not receive them, making a total over-charge of £23 7s 6d. Judgment will be entered for the plaintiff for the amount claimed in the original action, viz., £96 9s lid, less amount of overcharge £23 7s 6d, and less amount allowed on counter-claim £1 Is 6d, leaving a balance in favor of plaintiff in criminal action of £72 Os lid. with costs of Court £1 108, witnesses' expenses £2 Bs. solicitors' fees £4 12s.