RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 3748, 6 October 1886, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

* TIMAB-U— Tuesday, Octobbb stii. (Before J. S. Beswick, Esq , 8.M.) DUrNZBXNESS. A first offender for being drunk was lined ss. Joseph Hawley charged with a similar offence was, after tho evidence of Constable Kenny and Detective Kirby had been taken, sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment, His Worship remarking that there was a prohibition order out against accused and he had also been fined several times for drunkenness. Hawley said he was not drunk when arrested by the police ; that he had on that day m question only had one glass of " hop bitters " and that the order being out against him he could not get drink at any of the hotels. CIVIL CASES. Judgment by default was given m the following cases: —W. Webster v. W. Armstrong, claim £1 17s <ld ; Ogilvio and Byers v. W. MeGowan, claim 13s ; W. Stanton (Mr Humersley) v. Hall and Measou, claim £U 0s 7d. W. Brown r. Timaru Woollen Factory Company (Ld.) — claim, £31 4s 4d. Mr White for plaintiff and Mr Hamersley for defendants. This was a claim for £29 3s 4d ono month's salary at tho rato of £350 per annum, and £5 Is expenses. Mr White shortly opened his case and then called William Brown -who, after stating that on the 25th August last was at a meeting of Directors of tho company and was engaged at a. lahry of £350 a year with an additional £150 as soon as the shareholders received 8 per cent on their shares, as commercial manager and traveller to tho company, and had entered into his duties on the following morning, gave particulars of the work he hud transacted for them. To Mr Hamersley : Saw Directors on the 25th but had seen Hill before that but had not attended a meeting of shareholders on tho 2ith. Hill explained to witness that tho mill would not resume work until 2000 extra shares were applied for. Witness fully understood this and eaid that ho would not hold them liable for salary m lieu of notice if they were not able to carry on. Did not e.iy to them that he did not want any appointment or engagement until the 2000 allures had been subscribed ; asked for a letter embodying the conditions of the engagement, but did not get ono. Did not tell ono of the Directors that he was going to Christchurch on his own responsibility. When m Christchurch sold gome goods to Hobday Bnd Company, also cold goods to various firms m Timaru. Re-examined by Mr White witness laid that at the general meeting on September 11th U. B. Courtis, tho Chairman, stated that the 2000 shares had been taken up. Before going to Christchurch witness again told Sims (the secretary), that ho ought to attend to the matter of sending witness a letter embodying the terms of the engegement. Witness had told Hansen (the dyer), of the order ho had got m Christchurch and Timaru. J. D. Kctt, a director of the Woollen Company on the 25th August last was called to corroborate Brown's statement as to the terms of the engagement. At this time there were very few hands at work at tho Mill. Wa3 not present at a meeting of the Directors on September 11th bat saw from the Press that tOOO shares had been subscribed. Was sure plaintiff asked for a letter setting forth the terras of the engagement, and that Courtis said Sims would supply such a letter. To Mr Hamersley : At the time of Brown's engagement the Directors did not know whether they would or would not be able to carry on tho mill. Brown's agreement was only a verbal one, to be ratified definitely when the 2000 shares were taken up. He said he would not hold them responsible should the mill not resume work. Had seen the account sales of the goods sold by Brown m Christchurch and Timaru. Be-cxomined by Mr Whita : Tho Directors were dissatisfied with tho result of the Christchurch sales, but witness never heard of any complaints of inattention on the part of the plaintiff. Samuel Hansen, dyer at tha factory, said Courtis told him to go to tho mill and stop there till Brown cams. Could not say if any of the Directors were present when Brown was there. Was still m the Company's employment. To Mr Hamersley : Witness dyed two pieces of cloth— one black and one blue, for Brown. The latter then told ■witness to put tho carding machines on. Witness told him he knew nothing about the machines. Witness started them ; then {Brown left and witness stopped the machine. After this Brown came back, swore about tho machines being stopped, and Haigh (tho carder) then arriving he took charge of them. Brown only told witness that he "were boss there." To Mr White: Knew nothing about tho carders, so could not say if they had been damaged by running. This was the case for lho plaintiff. After stating the short facts of his caso Mr Haroersley called, H. B. Courtis, Chairman of Directors of the Woollen Company. He snid that the mill was stopped on tho 25th August for want of capital. Paw Brown at the meeting of Directors, and he made a proposal. Directors then discussed the matter, and witness then drew up a proposal (draft of proposal put m). At the meeting of the Directors on the 14th September this draft was ratified. At the first meeting no agreement was made, as the Directors pointed out that they could do nothing until 2000 shares were taken up. Brown then agreed to these terms, it being understood that as Boon as tho shares wero taken up the agreement would bo ratified. This had not been done. To Mr White : Remembered Brown coming to the mill on the 25th. The mill had only temporarily closed, but the hands wero not discharged. One or two of the hands were at work. No agreemeht was come to as Btated by Brown. Brown's offer was £350 per annum, with an additional £160 as soon as the shareholders received 8 per cent on their shores. Brown was not asked to work at all ; no one instructed him to go to the mill Had no recollection of telling the workmen to take their orders from Brown. Nevor told Brown to go to the mill j if bo worked at the mill, he did it gratuitously. Knew Brown was going to Christcbureh, but understood it was on his own business. Whilst m Christchurch Brown telegraphed to witness about some goods he had sold to Hobday and Co. Brown asked witnoss to get the secretary to send him a copy of the agreement, and witness replied that he would get Sims to do so. Witness could not say why he did not instruct tho secretary to send the letter. Sims said it was only a draft ; that it

hod not been confirmed ns 11 resolution. A'terwards saw Brown, who eaid he had not got the le'ter. Wns awnre of the claim for £5 Is, hut the first intimation hp got of the i rest of the present tlaim, wns receiving the summons. (Mr White then que-f ioned witness ot great length about tho draft oE the agreement.) The court then adjourned till two o'clock. On tho court resuming witness eaid the bond was not mentioned till the 25th August. It was subsequent to tha 14th September, that Brown was nsked to give a bond. As for ns witness wns concerned the mill was stopped to force shareholders to tako up more shares. The mill wns stopped on witness' own authority, as ho thought it beet m tho interest of' the mill. Murray Aston telegraphed to witness, telling him that Brown was making statements detrimental to the mil!. Witness signed written instructions to Bold for him to give Brown tho ken. Bold was appointed temporary manager of the mill m place of Clapham, whose engagement ceased when the mill stopped. Witness managed the mill betweon the time of Clapham leaving and Bold tailing charge. Brown bnd no right to assume Ihe managership until his appointment, was ratified. Ho was simply waiting till SOflO sharp* wero taken ' up. Brown tel< ■g'nphed from Christchurch to witness, asking him if he would agree tp accepting 2s 6d for pieces of shift. During a conversation with Brown tho latter recognised the fact that there ought to bo a bond between them, but objected to paying the £15. Brown said he thought he ought to get some recompense for the work he had clone. It did not occur to witness that it was peculiar to nsk Brown to enter into a bond for £1000 before the terms of the agreement were made known to him. Re-examined by Mr Hamersley, witness said the employees wero not virtually discharged ; they were not pnid during the time tho mill was rloscd. It was an understanding with Brown that ns soon as the mill was started again ho was to go on work. Brown did not object to anything m tho bond, but objected to pay the £15 premium. Jacob Hill, ono of Hie diroctors of the Woollen Factory Company, said he had had a conversation with Brown, who saH that as he was going to Christchurch he would like his matter to come beforo the directors before ho left. Brown mado a statement to the directors which was taken down by Courtis. When Brown came back he was told that nothing could be done till the 2000 shares were taken up. Brown replied that nothing was to bo binding between them. Itwasper° fectly understood by the directors that Brown was not engaged at any salary. Witness was perfectly satisfied that no arrangement was made that Brown was to bo engaged at any salary till tho 2000 shares wore taken up. When Brown went to Christchnrch he said he was going on his own private business. To Mr White witness said he saw the last witness give a number of papers to the secretary. Jas. McCahon, one of the directors, deposit! that Brown came down from Christchurch on his own responsibility ; he was not sent, for. The meeting on the 25th August at which tho resolution (produced) was carried was not called by circular. Witness altered the document to moot tho wishes of the Board. A. Cornish, another director, said he received intimation of the meeting on the 25th August hy telephone. At tha meeting, and before Brown retired, ono of the directors asked him what remuneration he would want if appointed, no replied £3^o per annum with nn advanco of £150 so soon as he was able to make the mill return 8 per cent to tre shareholders. Nothing of a binding nature wns done. To Mr Whiti witness .«:«id that the employees were only paid for tho tim.9 they worked. Wm. O'Bryan gave corroboraliro evidence as to what parsed between the directors and Brown as to his engngemont. To the Bench witnees said Brown approved of the quality of tho goods but not of the patlcrn. D. Ireland, ono of tho employees, said Brown called him outside the mill and told witness that he was about to bo appointed manager. O-. IFaigh also gave evidence as to the mill being started by H"(>nspn on Brown* orders. W. M. Sims, secretary to tho company, produced tho minuto book and proved the minutes passed nt the meetingAfter counael hud addressed the court judgment wns given for one month's wages, £29 3s 4rt. with costs £1 M«. John Worthington v. B. O'Rourkc— Claim £2 17?. Mr Whito for plaintiff, Mr Tosswill for defendant. John Worthington, pmmdkccper, Plensnnt Point, and the plaintiff, deposed to impounding a horse of defendant's. Whilst m the pound the horse was brutally killed. Defendant at first denied the ownership of tho horse, but afterwards admitted it. Tho borso was killed on tho night, of tho 19th August. Gave a man 30s for taking th« carcase away and burying it. The liorso was never sold, but witness gavo defendant notieo that if tho procreds of the sale did not cover pound fees ho would hold defendant responsible for tho difference. Bartholomew O'Rourke, the defendant, Bnid ho never denied the ownership of the horse, and never gave plaintiff authority to bury the horse. He had no means to pay tho pound fees till plaintiff paid him the money for wages he owed him. Witness did not know who killed the horse. He never received a claim from the plaintiff for pound fees. After some argument judgment was given for the amount claimed, with costs. The court at -130 p.m. then rose.