DISTRICT COURT.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2930, 16 August 1882, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

TIMARU—THIS DAY. (Before His Honor Judge Ward.) CIVIL CASES. C. Bourn and others v. Henry G-reen —Claim £2OO, for damages and goods supplied. Mr Jameson for plaintiffs, Mr flamersley for defendant. ! His Honor had reserved judgment which he now delivered for the plaintiffs v for the amount claimed with costs. Gillespie v. Sifabald—Claim £2OO. Mr While for plaintiff ; Mr Jameson for defendant.

Mr Jameson in this case applied for an adjournment, on the ground that owing to his not having been fully instructed as to the calling of witnesses he was unprepared to go on with the case.

Mr White, on behalf of the plaintiff objected to an adjournment, stating that sufficient notice had been given. His Honor granted an adjournment to next Court day. J. A. Gamack v. New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Co. (Limited)— Claim £43 2s 3d for damages. Mr White for plaintiff, Mr Perry for defendants. This was a case in which the plaintiff sought to recover an amount for which he, as a station manager, had been sued by an employee of the defendants, and which he had paid. Mr Perry objected that the particulars of the claim on which plaintiff said he had been sued,were not forthcoming. After argument, His Honor allowed the plaintiff to append the particulars required to the plaint, Mr Perry said he was prepared to bring forward proof of fraudulent misrepresentation on the part of plaintiff regarding payment of the station bands. Mr White said he was taken by surprise. Nothing had been said on any one’s part of fraudulent misrepresentation. His Honor adjourned the case to next court day, Mr Perry to supply the plaintiff with the additional plea. f Mr White applied for costs. Ho was prepared to go on, if that plea were struck out. His Honor ordered the defendants to pay the cost of the adjournment. Same v. Same —Claim £2oofor wages and damages. Mr White for plaintiff; Mr Perry for defendant.

Mr White said plaintiff claimed for work done for defendants, and for damage sustained by unlawful dismissal he acting as a station manager for defendants, at a salary of £3OO per annum. On the first, plaintiff claimed £33 6s 8d for wages, and £16613s 4d for damages. The defence on the first claim was that plaintiff had disobeyed the lawful commands of defendants and for that reason had been discharged. On the second claim it was pleaded that plaintiff had violated the agreement by not giving his whole time to the business: of the defendants.

Mr White, in reviewing the plaintiff’s case, said plaintiff had assigned his two stations to the defendants receiving from them a clear release from liability, certain concessions, and employment aa a station manager. The following evidence was taken John Alexander Gamack said he had been the owner of Newland and Balmoral estates, which be assigned to the defendants. On the day of his executing the assignment, he received the appointment (produced.) He acted as their manager till July 11 last, when ha received the letter of dismissal (produced) with one month’s salary. Tho cheque for that was signed by Mr LeCren. On or about July 1, he had asked Mr LeCren's permission to go up to Braemar to look after certain damage to his property, of which he had received information. Mr LeCren gave an evasive answer, yes, and no—and witness stated tho circumstances under which he was asking permission. There was no distinct refusal on Mr LeCren’s part, and witness left the room and went to Braemar. Tho distance fromNewlands to Braemar is about 90 miles. He found two of defendant's shepherds in the hut at Braemar, on his arrival, and told them he bad no room for strangers,—-to which the head shepherd replied that they were under orders from Mr LeCren. Ho found 2000 or 3000 of his sheep outside the fences. The sheep had been re. branded—with the new brand of the Company. Ha afterwards left for If

-v • which he found in proper order. : Shortly after his return there he received ’ the letter of dismissal. He was suc- /. ceeded by Mr Sherwood Raine, who bore ' . the letter* He gave Mr Haine all information about the run. He had hitherto been paid no salary for the s portion of July between July land 11. It would be very difficult to obtain suitable employment, He had not the slightest idea what was meant by the “ antagonism to the Company,” to which reference was made by the letter of dismissal. . ' To Mr Perry—l have had no time to tty to obtain further employment. I was . dismissed on July 10. I have been so „ occupied in moving that I have been unable to look for employment. When I went from Newlands to Braemar, the '■ station was not more short-handed than ; at any other time. I had nobody in charge of Braemar from 22nd April to 19th June. I had mortgaged Braemar to Mr Williamson., It was arranged that Mr LeCren should look after Braemar for Mr Williamson. This arrangement was made without consulting me. I moved some sheep from Balmoral to Braemar, knowing them to be claimed by the company. I swear Mr LeCren did not (when I asked him for leave to go up to Braemar) say “ If you go, you go on your own responsibility.” I did ask Alves if he had £3OO or £4OO ; bnt deny saying that if so, there might. he a flaw in the mortgage to Williamson. Mr LeCren said to me you will learn by and by who is in possession. Your ;■ client is in possession and that will i 'soon form the subject of a Court action, ■y. I did not put Alves in possession of Braemar. I have paid no wages or • interest on account of Braemar. Mr LeCren said to me “ I have paid the inj terest to Mr Williamson to keep him sweet.” He has paid wages at Braemar. . Re-examined —When in possession of these runs witness had made all payments through the Company. The payments have not been made at my express instigation. S. J. Raymond, articled law clerk, deposed 1 that on July 1 he heard Mr Gamack. ask Mr LeCren what be meant by interfering with his station (Braemar or Balmoral, witness was not sure which). He also heard Mr Gamack ask leave to go up to Braemar. Mr LeCren gavtr no answerj except that he mur- ■ mured something. He neither objected ■ nor-'consented. , He was about four yards from both parties. To Mr Perry—l could not distinguish what the munnering was. Mr LeCren never’said, -‘if you go, you go on your own responsibility." Mr Gamack was Speaking freely, bnt in no way such as he ought not to speak. William Smith, said he had been sent to Braemar Station to take charge. Mr Alves, manager at the Balmoral Station, gave him notice to quit a few days after. . . (Mr Perry submitted that antagonistic conduct bad been proved, for (plaintiff, (a servant of defendant) bad taken possession of sheep found on the defendant’s property, and bearing the defendant’s brand). Witness deposed to a conversation between himself and Alves about the sheep. When he went to Braemar the but was locked. He was a week at Braemar, and he left because he understood the dispute between Mr Gamack and the Company had been settled. William Anness, shepherd, of Burke’s Pass, said be was at Braemar Station about July 12. He left on July 13. He had been placed there by Mr Gamack. He was ordered off by George Alves, at Mr LeCren’s bidding. Alves told him he would get no more tucker there. There were about 2000 or 3000 sheep. To Mr Perry—He went to Braemar with Mr Gamack. He was paid £2 per week. Mr Gamack said the sheep were his, and put them through the gate, W. Sherwood Raine deposed to succeeding Mr Gamack in the management of Howlands and to finding some sheep undipped, and not dagged, and some fences out of repair. Mr White asked for an adjournment to complete bis ease. Mr Perry strongly objected. TTia Honor said he was unable to Violate the rules of evidence. If Counsellor the defence chose to throw on the other side the onus of proof of incorporation and of Mr Lecren’s legal power to act, it was purely a matter of technical proof, and, he should certainly adjourn the case, giving the cost (of a witness from Auckland) against the defence. Mr Perry, after consultation with his client, said lie would, to save trouble, admit the power of attorney but added he might require proof of the existence of the Company. He however now proceeded to state the case for the defence. It was, briefly, that Mr Gamack had transferred Balmoral to the Company on finding himself unable to carry on. Braemar was mortgaged to the Hon. Mr Williamson, of Auckland. Mr LeCren had taken charge of the Braemar property for Mr Williamson, Alves acting under him. Mr Gamack was engaged to look after the Newlands and Balmoral properties. The cause of this action was chiefly Mr LeCren’s declining to give him permission to go out to Braemar, and Mr Gamack’s conduct with regard to the sheep bearing the company’s brand.