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.'.;
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/THA18970122.2.3
Bibliographic details
Thames Advertiser, Volume XXIX, Issue 8641, 22 January 1897, Page 1
Word Count
771WAGES CLAIM. Thames Advertiser, Volume XXIX, Issue 8641, 22 January 1897, Page 1
Using This Item
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.