SUPREME COURT

Southland Times, Issue 17969, 9 March 1917, Page 2

SUPREME COURT

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7. (Before his Honour Mr Justice Sim). His Honour took his seat at 10 a.m. CIVIL BUSINESS. The hearing was resumed of the case in which Thos. Me.nce, of Bluff, sued the New Zealand Shipping Company for £2034 11s 6d, alleged damages and personal injuries owing to an accident sustained by the defendant whilst receiving goods into a truck from the Remuera.— Mr W. C. MacGregor, K.C. and Mr Eustace Russell for the plaintiff; Mr S. Solomon, K.C. and Mr W. A. Stout for defendant. Evidence was given for the plaintiff by Drs. Brown, Sale, Stewart and McCaw.

Mr Solomon, K.C , said he would not call evidence, for the defendants. In his address to the Jury he said counsel for plaintiff had no right to say that the company was a rich concern. In the first place it was not a rich company, but if it was the matter should not have bce.n brought to the notice of the jury, whose duty it was to consider what injury the man had met with. He had undoubtedly been injured and had to be paid, but it was no part of the Jury's duty to punish the company. If the company had done a wilful wrong to a man it would be their duty to give not only compensation but something additional. so as to show that in their opinion the company had done something that a right-minded person should not have done. That was not so in this case and it was their duty to give the man an amount that would reasonably compensate him for the injury. It had been due to the incompetence of servants of the company. They were living in troublous times and knew how difficult it was for every company and every man to get satisfactory service. Their servants were being taken away from them and employers in many cases had to be satisfied with inefficient staffs. This was the experience of the defendants in the present case and the plaintiff had suffered injury as also had the company. Counsel submitted that though probably the man would not again be able to follow the occupation of a stevedore, there was light labouring work he could do, and said that elderly men such as plaintiff, who was about 59 years of age, had now opportunities of securing employment which would not exist but for the large number of young men who had gone away. He characterised the amount of the claim, £2OOO, as ridiculous, and said he had not been astonished to hear counsel for the plaintiff say that the amount claimed was only a matter of form. Substantial damages should be awarded, a few hundred pounds, but no more. His Honour summed up and the jury, after a short retirement returned to the courtroom asking what the maximum amount under the Workmens Compensation for Accidents .Act a man would be entitled to who met with an injury similar to that sustained by the plaintiff. His Honour replied that the amount was £SOO.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff and fixed the damages at £950. Judgment was entered accordingly, with costs as per scale. CLAIM FOR WAGES.

Patrick John Bellctt claimed £289 from Wm. Arthur Prints for wages, or £360 6s lOd, half share of profits accruing from the Railway Hotel. Mr D. D, Macdonald appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Wm. Macalister for the defendant. The case was heard before a jury of four, the members of which were Messrs Geo. Taylor (Foreman), E. Philpott, Jno. Buchanan, and H. Guest. Mr Macdonald, in opening the case for the plaintiff, said that plaintiff claimed for 78 weeks wages at £5 per week. He admitted having received £lOl, leaving a balance due to him of £289. Plaintiff had managed the Railway Hotel during the period mentioned, and it was for the jury to say if the amount claimed was a fair one. Evidence in support was given by the plaintiff, Ebenezer Richards and F. A. Webb.

For the defence, Mr Macalister said that in 1913 Bellett came from the Gatlins district, where he had been doing very badly. Printz acquired the lease of the Railway Hotel in order to give Bellett a chance of doing something for himself. The plaintiff then had no money, and out of the profits from the hotel business he had to recoup the defendant lor the money the latter had expended. Altogether l £I3OO had been expended, and that was what the hotel owed the defendant. Bellett became dissatisfied with his position, and endeavoured to : become a partner, but Printz was not favourable, although he agreed that the plaintiff could become a partner at a later date. Printz was compelled in February, 1915, to take action, and ask for a statement of the accounts. The parties met on March 4, 1915, and an arrangement was come to, whereby Bellett would get a share of the profits, and, as soon as certain moneys had been paid off, he would get a share in the partnership. The partnership was to give security to Printz for the amount he had expended. Bellett did not sign that agreement. Later he had drawn £lOl as payment for wages owing to him. From March 1, 1915, there had been a partnership by verbal agreement. Later, on September 30th, Bellett executed a security over all the chattels to secure the payment of £9OO. An arrangement was made, which Bellett accepted. He had endeavoured to make out that he was a partner, which defendant would not allow until certain liabilities had been paid off. Bellett had never suggested since March, 1915, that he had any claim for wages. The business between the parties had been done in a very slipshod way. because they were relations. The partnership would have continued till now If Bellett had acted as he ought to have done. Evidence for' the defence was given by W. A. Stout, R. T. Meredith and the defendant. .. . His Honour, in summing up, said that It was not disputed that the plaintiff had acted in connection with the business, and he was entitled to remuneration for his services, unless defendant showed that he had satisfied plaintiffs claims or settled them. ... The jury returned a verdict for the defendant. Costs on the middle scale and disbursements and witnesses expenses were allowed the defendant.