A KORU COURT CASE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 298, 26 January 1910, Page 2

A KORU COURT CASE.

SOME RIvmAI!KABLE EVIDENCE,

•A CARETAKER'S DUTIES WHAT

ARE THEY?

Koni used to .urn finite a reputation for litigation, l:u; latterly the local Magistrates Court has not been called upon, until yesterday, to settle neighbors' quarrels arising in that locality. But for the sawmill, and for the litigation following its establishment, Koni

would almost hav c been forgotten by now.

A WAGES DISPUTE.

George Hill sued the Deputy Official Assignee in the c stat e of J. J. Patterson for balance of wages due. The praintiff had acted for some time as caretaker at the Koru mill, belonging to the es tate, his duties being to keep the buildings and plant in order and keep down the blackberry and ragwort on the farm. This work he did, and he received no complaint from his employer as to the manner of carrying out his duties, the letter containing his discharge making no mention of it, but merely asking for his account, which lie promised to settle. He denied the .suggestion of cross-examining counsel that lie had, instead of looking after the mill, worked about amongst the neighbors. The first witness on the other side wa.s Patrick Raill, who stated that Hill was very seldom at the mill, and worked pretty regularly for W. and H. Green. Rowell, and Adlam.

In cross-examination by Mr. Johnstone, counsel and witness soon came to grips, owing to the indefiniteness of the witness' evidence now upon points concerning which he had been definite enough in his examination-in-ehief. "You're an old hand in the -witnessbox?" queried the lawyer. A look of mild surprise and wonder passed over th> witness' face. "I don't understand,"' he said.

The question was repeated, and the gaze of puzzled innocence returned. "I don't understand what you mean," he repeated. Again the question was repeated, and again the same answer given. The Magistrate took a hand. ''Come, witness, it's a very simple question. Why don't you answer?"

''But, your Worship," the witness ex postulated, "he wants to say —he means, your 'Worship, to make out — "He asked you a very simple question. Why uon't you answer it?" came from the Bench, a trifle smartly. "Well," reluctantly answered the witness, "I believe I've been here a couple of times."

"A couple of times," ejaculated counsel, and he reeled off a list of cases that Raill had figured in during the past twenty years or more, the witness acknowledging the fact.

"You get on nicely with your neighbors, don't, you?" asked counsel.—"Yes."

'"Lyall was a neighbor. You didn't get on very well with him?" "Lyall killed m}' calf"—but the Court did-n't want the story.

Further cross-examination angered the witness, who, pulling a bundle of notes from bis pocket, answered fiercely, "I'll bet >oii £2O to one that you're wrong." This was in 'the vigorous denial of an inference that he'worked Hill out of his job, by offering to do the work at a lower rate.

"Put your notes away," roared tlu Bench, "you mustn't bet here." "You have had trouble with most of your neighbors?*' "No, you're wrong. I've had no trouble with Hill." "Then what's your kindly intent here to-day ?"

"I'm only here because Weston and Weston asked me." The witness confessed his inability to remember any occasion upon which a judce of the Suurcme Court, had used a most onprobrio'us. term in referring to Tiim. He couldn't remember the w6rd ''scoundrel" h.'ing used. "You oughtn't to put this up, you know," be said. "Tt was a big case, and I can't remember all about it." Mr. Johnstone: It ought to be burned in your memory. But, anyhow, this gentleman is well-known in the courts. Tlif? witness: "I'm favorably known, anyhow." In continuing his evidence, he said that although he was caretaker he didn't touch or oil the machinery or saws. He didn't consider that part of his duty. Cross-examination continued: Every day that I saw Hill he was working up at Rowell's. I wasn't watching him every day and any day, but he was there most of th e time. Rowell's was about a hundred yards from the mill. I didn't see him often. I wasn't interested very much. Rowell moved a mile and half down the road. I saw him there.

Counsel: What, you saw him a mile and a-lialf away?—Xo, my dear sir, I don't cay that. Witness continued that he had seen Hill building a shed for Eowell. ITe had also seen him hay-making at Green's. He denied having had one of the company's* hydraulic rams, but later on admitted having received it from Hill, and that it was still at his house. Edward James Rowell, a farmer at Kom, and a neighbor of the plaintiff, deposed that ITill was generally about the mill. The evidence given to the effect that ITill worked regularly for 'him was untrue. Whilst witness had a. broken hand ITill used to chop wood for him sometimes, and do little jobs of that kind for him in the morning. ITi'il had not worked at his house farther down tlio road during the term of his engagement as caretaker at the mill. TTe had been neighbor of Raill's for fourteen years. Mr. Johnstone: What sort of a neighbor was he? Mr. Weston objected to the question. His Worship said that it was permissible to ask file witness if he would believe the evidence of another witness on oath.

Asked thi> question by Mr. Johnstone. "TVould you believe the evidence of Eaill on oath';'' the witness replied: "No. certainly not." Cross- examined: TTil! did not assist him in building the filled. He couldn't say that Hill worked for other people whilst lM'ing paid by the Deputy Official Assignee, for lie had his own business to mind. TTe didn't know that it was a matter of common repute in the district.

The S.M. said that matter of common repute wouldn't be sutTicient to ''stablish a defence. Before deducting anytiling from This mail's wages on account of abscnc" from duty lie would need w be satisfied as to specific date. Hp w.is proceeding to give judgment, for plaintiff, when Mr. Weston askeiT thai this should be deferred pending the settlement of a counter-claim.