WAGES CLAIM.

Thames Advertiser, Volume XXIX, Issue 8641, 22 January 1897, Page 1

WAGES CLAIM.

The first case dealt withwas & claini;for wages(i2l)—lsaao Phillip LeaH t, the Ake Ake G.M. Co. Mr Miller appeared for plain tiff and MrColbeek'for wenda'titi' Jlf '* Mr Colbe'ck stated that |he'defendß was' that plaintiff never I! workedbntHe'Com* pany's ground, \vhich^ ; wa'iiii'uiit(id-'At Tararu. "I' o was appointed the Company's mine manager, but'went -wrong ground. .• Tho case was based on a question offaets. '.•'..•!.• ,

Isaac Phillip Leah deposed that he was by occupation manager," Was employed'by tho dfiF<mdaiifc ; C6mpahy'sW tlielr inino. manager, On .October loth .Last witiiess'wfls engaged by 1 tho Company; and lift'wilt' to'work on October 20|li..ft'itn'css got. a notice (produced and datedftepfember Itrd) from the Company to cease working ~ The 'Warden;' 'm • tho<»'noVfc&l'ubm ' tho 'Company'; wliicli;:statc!d;'tliat)J*itness had ■' used' the'. Company^?' mbne'j in developing ground , outside. the Com. pany'sarea. The'Companydid;iibt consider this ih tuntioiial part^but K 'rfftiafed ; on th'e ground of negligence to recognisefiny claiin for wages,] Witness got that notice on SeptcmlKT i'lth. 1 .Witness uadvbera engaged at .C:l Ills a week.' C'pasfd: work after getting the notice. Witness, worked altogether for seven weeks, and his -first,-two-week's wages were paid by the Company.' froii the Company 'his'"'wages 'fof'lhfTreniaiiiing five weeks, Vand .one , week's notice, period, Witnes3 whs supplied ground when taking'the position;' 'The'Co'Mi''. pany sent no surveyortopointquttheground, and witness was' not "a' surveyor. ,• came to the Office 'and Med* kt' • the plan and ascertained the marks on tho peg, He thus located the, ground and found the pegs; there'were''nV-Mi& l: 'peg£4ib'out■&' tho locality, Witness* worked within the boundaries of- the ! ; pes, dffl fynployed two men. Witness : was •'engajjetFin proi^diflg s work looking for lodes, and erected a- Bmithy on tho groiind:- •' 'Witness,' lly'aidoP a com--pass, did his best to mak#&ure <ff -the' \<kk> ' tion of the ground; and-worked within its boundaries. Mr' Julian; duringlivisitto thomine, inspected the grohndi.-ahcl took* away the tracing plan which witlidas'' Siibsequentlypwitness ■received-' & -"letter' from the Company stating that witness. ' had not yet replied 'to theCoihpany's pre* \'iotts letter re the ground. : -Witness didnot understand the import of thiVletter;as'heL' had up to then received-no previoua letter from the Company, Yesterday morning, however, a letter from the 'Company came j ■ to hand, which witnessed not yet opened.,' The Warden from the company, and -stated >that*.the,* Company had been jnformqdi that witness? was working on the wrong ground. - -This.;' letter bore a p-postmark-ref; '{Auckland/? November ] 7th, Thames, : -November 18th,v Wniomb a subsequent ;date, and "again'6f Thames marked January 18th, ".-——■•• r - - '-, Mr Miller said that the : solution of the , mystery was that the letter' had;been de-' layed at Waiomo:: • ';;■;'': J V<!''■' - :c, 'v . Witness;' If he'had received that witness : would; immediately have 1 set'the ',, errorright. .' "' \' ; •'•"-[ - 1 ■'[■ i ;/■ . ['• • *:;.< In cross-exammationbyllrColbeckii'wit-', ness saidhehadbeentoldbyagehtletnanof. the Company to seeMrßnckreyi , who ; pegged out the ground, when he came to the Tames; A Witness went and asked Bnokley to ahowhini -l the pegs, but Bucldey refused to and witness took the'risk, thmkinghecbuldv discover the location of the ground at-the .. Warden's office; .Buckley, told witness that ' he (witness) wab' working'on the wrong' , ground,' •' '- : --: '■ 'i'

In answej to His Worship Mr Miller raid plaintiff maintained .that he had worked on the Company's ground.' ,'. .'■'■ ,• .;■ V* This closed the ca'so for plaintiff. Win. BucMey, deposed that when;Leati' called on him, .witness said he could no : t go and show him : the'pegs tiU a few. &Jflater,;... Later on witness.told Leak'that he wa8 J nofcV, working on the Ake'Ake, but on the Eclipse.- J Witness pegged,out. the Eclipse, the A\ce[\ Ake, and the adjourning area' named the : Loraas. Leah was working 10 or 12 chsinß from the Ake Ake boundary. _,; That waVin > the middle of November, and'toward'the yj end'of that month.', "■ '•;.""*'..','."•.)"■ .".',' '■'.'.''■-i'i Cross-examined bj' Mr Miller.—When wit— ■ ness told Leak he could not show'him.tho\. : pegs, Leak went away in the belief that he r, could find them hkself. ' Witness was not - r asked by the company to point but"the pegfc>.by Leah. Witness wasnpt asnryeyorafidhad',; taken no measurements', and was relying'en " guess work." .• Bid not know.where tho smithy was,.but believed it was not on tho Company's ground. The level was not on-, tho Company's ground, but witness was not so certain as to the trenches. ' ; ' ' ' ' •

John Sells also gave evidence, which closed the case for defendant. ■■...■." ;; Plaintiff, re-called, said the'cost of'the level drive—4B feet in length—was £9. \' The Warden remarked that this sum! tfas a clear loss to the Company; as it was dear that tho drive was not on the Company's ground. The plaintiff had actedbnhisown risk, and had actedina carelesSmanne'r, i ihd judgment wonld be given forvdefendnntrwith costs. All that had been done w»s that a smithy had beeu erected, and alittle prospect* ingdone. • ' ' '■'*' .-.. ' Tho costs amounted to £4 2s 6d.'.;