RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 2057, 27 April 1881, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

TlMAßU— Tuesday, April 26.

(Before lt. Beetbam,Eea.,R.M.) DRUNKENNESS." For this offence three inebriates were fined 5s each. ALLKOBD EMBEZZLEMENT. John Joseph Farroll, on remind, was i charged with having embezzled the sum of £2 12s 8d from the Timaru Railway Dopart- I ment. I Mr Whito appeared for the proeecut ion and ! Mr Hamorsloy for tho accused I Mr Hamerelity said on tho last occasion tho ' accused was brought beforo the Bench, Mr | Jameson, who appeared for tho prosecution, applied for und had a remand granted on tho ' ground that another oharge was being pre- (

pared against the accuaed. He (Mr Hameraley) had requested that the nature of the second oharge should be laid m the ordinary way before the remand was granted, as hia client and himself were m ignorance of it. He had only just ascertained what that charge was, and he therefore had to request that time might be allowed him lo consult with hia client, and arrange for the colloction of evidence. Mr White eaid he had no objection to the remand being granted, whereupon His Worship adjourned the case till next Friday week. CITII OASES. In the following cases judgment was given by default for the amount claimed: — Anderaon and others T. Gibson, claim £2 4j lid*: John Speid v. F. Tavender, claim £12 6». ■ Denis Heffornan v. John Stack—Claim, £21 Is Bd. Mr Hamersley for plaintiff, and Mr Jameson for the defendant. Mr Hamersley explained the claim was for ploughing 20 acres of land at 6s per acre, £6 ; carting 200 bushels grain from Levels Plains to Tiuiuru, £2 Is 8d ; tying oats, £1 10s ; use of team of horses, £1 10a j other expenses, £10 Is 10.1. Mr Jameson disputed the reasonableness of tho charges. After the examination of the plaintiff, defendant, and two witne?ses, His Worship gavo judgment for £5 4s Bd, and costs of Court. Benjamin Jones v. Robert Stansell — Claim, £18 ii for arrears of wages. Mr Jameson fur the plaintiff, and Mr Hamersley fi>< the defendant. Benjirain Jones, tho plaintiff, stated he was a journeyman printer, and wa« lately m the employ of Mr Sransell, of the South Canterbury Times. Was originally engaged at the rato of three guineas a week. Thnt was the rate of wages ruling m October last year. In the last week m -September last year the typographical men employed m the ofßro received nolico that their wages would be reduced to £2 10s per week. At that lime Mr Hogg was recognised as Mr StaaneU's confidential business adviser. He (witress) m company with the other typographical hands interviewed Mr Hogg about the reduction of wages, and also concerning a grievance m respect to the introduction of boy labor into the office. They asked to h'ivo their position explained. Mr Hogg waited upon MrS'aosell at their request, and shortly afterwards he (Mr Hogg) called them into bis room and laid he had been authorised by HrStanaell to fay that providing they accepted the reduction proposed, they should get the differeneo between £3 3s and £2 10s so soon »b the Telegraph newspaper died j that if any of the men left the office before that time, they would receive the full amount owing them by the reduction, and that tho reduction was merely a temporary matter. Recently he (witne*f) received notice to leave, and he now claimed the arrears of wages, m accordance with the arrangement that had been made. Cross-examined by Mr Hamersley : The Telegraph ceased publication a few days before Christmas. He thought on the 21st December. He presented Mr Stansell with a bill for the amount duo on leaving the office, which hud not been paid. Tb.at was the first limo ho had ever made the claim. If he (witnes?) hail accepted £2 10a per week unconditionally it would have been a breach of tho rules of tho Typographical Society, of which he was a member, and. m such case he wou'd have been subjected to a fine, advertised m tho Printers' Gazette as a " rat," and would thereby be debarred from obtaining etnploymeut,in any other oflior m New Zaland or Australia where the rules of the Society were recognised. That was one reason why the men waited on Mr Hogg ; and another reason was that the rules of the Society debarred the men from working m an ofßco where there was an unfair proportion of boy labor. Tho men m the office had always beon under the impression that Mr Hogg wae Mr StanteU'a ndviser. Hud hover known Mr Hogg to make arrangements about money matters, except m their own case when the dispute arose. He (witness) was discharged T>n April 14th. A. W. Ho?g, journalist, stated he was employed by Mr Stansell as editor of ihe South Canterbury Times. He remembered m October, 1880, when a general reduction was made m the wages of nearly the whole of the men employed m the office. Previous to October the journeymen printers received £3 3* per week, and were then reduced to £2 10s. In consequence of this reduction, the men waited upon him and explainnd the position m which they would be placed by the Society. The men said on that occasion that if they accepted the reduced kcsle of wages they would bo braDded as "rats" by the So-iisty. They also said they did not wish to be disturbed, a; they preferred remaining m Timaru. In aoeordance with their desire, he waited upon Mr Stansell and talked the matter over with him. Mr Stansell told him that the reduction was only intended to bo a. temporary measure, and that if the paper was paying he would bo very willing to psy full wages ; that as soon as the Telegraph disappeared, or hia own paper began to pny, tho men wru'.d have their money m full — meaning that he would pay their full wages — and that m the meinwliile, should any change. in the office occur by which the men would lose their present employment, he should make good the amount of money deducted, go that they would be able to go to another office and obtain employment m tho same way as if they bad obtained full wages throughout, thus enabling them to overcome the difficulty with the Society. He a.iw the men subsequently and communicated the result to them, whon they expressed themselves as fully satisfied and went to work. Ihat trok place m October. He had nsver heard of any alteration m that arrangement. Mr Stansell had authorised him to tell the men the terms ttiat vrere proposed. ' Cross-examined by Mr Hamersley .• Sever recollected the expression being used by Mr Stansell, that if it was only a matter of a week or two he would not mind paying up arrears occasioned by the reduction. Was perfectly convinced that no reference was made tn time. This reduction was made to relievo Mr Stnneell's expenditure, bacauie the paper was not paying. Recollected Mr Stansell saying during the in'erviow he did not care what terms the Society demanded. The reduction was only intended as a temporary measure, and a Ion;; length of time was never contemplated by anyone. Robert Stansell, the defendant, stated be remembered reducing the wages of nearly all his employed m October. The reason this was done was on account of business being very slack and the paper not paying. The men had ever since been working on reduced woges kb then introduced. He recollected Mr Hogg waiting upon him on behalf of the men when ho (witness) had declined to hear a word, Mid did not offer to concede a point on any consideration. During that interview tho names of only two typographical men were mentioned m reference to whom he might haro promised to make good the amount of reduction if they left before the death of the Telegraph. Mr Hogg must have altogether misunderstood what he (witness) said ontbat occasion. Mr Hogg nevor had any authority from him (witness) to arrange any dispute that arose with his men. Mr Hamersley then summed up the evidence, and thought it was most unreaaonablt to suppose that Mr ftansell would make suoh an arrangement aa waa explained by Mr Hogg. There could bo no doubt but that either Mr Hogg's memory had led him into error, or he altogether misunderstood Mr Slansell. Ho contended that the plaintiff was not entitled by law to recover, as he had made an agreement for three guineas a week, which was sometime afterwards broken, and had voluntarily accepted a lesß amount. Mr Jameson thought the legal point raised by counsel was absurd. Mr Stansell had m a way obtained a loan from his men whioh he had never paid. He referred particularly to JVfr Hogg's evidence, which proved conclusively tho money had been deduoled from the men's wages on the understanding that it whs to be paid on a future occasion. Hie Worship said there could be no doubt about the case as far as the ovidence was concerned. Mr Hogg was an unbiassed witness, and perfectly disinterested. If any thing, his interests might reasonably ba expected to be bound up m those of Mr Slansell. Ho had no doubt m the matter, but as a legil point was at issue, ho would udjourn tho caße for ar^umont on the legal point, if counsel for the defondant desired. Mr Humersloy agreed to this, and Hit Worship adjourned the ,oase till next Xues« ay.