MAGISTERIAL

Timaru Herald, Volume L, Issue 4843, 14 May 1890, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL

TfiTABU— TUE3DAT, May 13. (Beforo C. A. Wray, E £ q., R.M ) DRCSKENKES3. A couple of first offenders 'wero fined 5s each and maintenance fee 13 Cmii CA3E3. In tha following, judgment went by default for amounts claimed and costs:— W. H. IToden (Mr Baymond) v. J. Taylor, clnim £7 18a ; J. W. White v. J. J. Martin, claim £2 18a Id. The caao Copeland v. Agnew was tbo first defended case. Mr Bay appeared for plaintiff and Sir White for tbe defendant. Mr Hay said tbat the claim was for wages at tbreshine 20,000 bushel? of grain at £1 per thousand, and 11 days work at 8j per day m repairing tho maehfns. All went well with tho partios until Copeland waa threshing Mr A. Wyllie'a crop, when this farmer refused to allow tho threshing to \>3 continued one day on . account of rain haviDg fallen. Copeland stopped work ofc Once and happening to ba in Tiraaru taw Drutnmond, a partner of Agnew'a. He o»ked Copeland why ho waa not threshing and tha latter replied that tfr W-llio had knocked them off— it waa too wet for threshing. To this JDramroond said that the machine ehould have been pulled out, and Wyllie's grain left. Copeland replied that he could not do this, as the grain wan not really m a condition to be threshed, and as they did not seem to agree he would giro a fortnight's notice. To this Drunimond said that he could go at once, and that he would manage the engine himielf. Copeland had received £5 10j on account, but not the balance, though Drummondeaid ttat ha was quite agreeable to pay up if Agnew was. Mr Hay added that' there woa no agreement that Oopeland should stay till tboend of tbe season, but if there had been, Copeland bad agreed to give two weeks' notice, but was told he could go at orice. The plaintiffs evidenca supported that of Mr Hay's charge. In reply to Mr White witness said tbat (here was no mention (hat as lie was going to get very high wages he had belter look over tbe machine and see that it was all right. He detailed the repairs he had effected to it. He had not been engaged for the season, but at so much per thousand ; but he could not leave at any titno. As a fact be was not engaged for the wbolo season — had never heard Drummond or Agncw say that ho was. When ho spoke to Drummond, giving him notice, the latter did not object. On seeing Agnew about it, tbe latter said that ho would fee some farmers who owed him money, get it, and pay witness- Drummond paid witness Si after getting nolice. Alex. Wyllie, of Burnbank, said that he gave notice to Copoland to ceaßethreahing for a time as the grain was not fit to be threshed owing to rain. Frank Conway, put on by Copeland to afeist m threshing, said that ho had had a few words with Agnew after leaving Wyllie's, and Agnew refused to pay his wagen. Witness replied that he would summon him, anil after this Agnew paid up. Agnew told witness that ho was to pull tho belt off the engine if Copeland came back. Chas. Bumham also said that he had been instructed by Agnew not to let CoDelami reiume work. Mr White said that for tho defence he would prove that Copeland had been ongaged for the whole seasion. Bis pay waa to bo very good, and he waa directed to aoo that lho mill onii engino were m propor order for getting through a succesiful icaion. There was nothing said about his being paid for this. As to his leaving be m«t Drnmmond and the latter reminded him that he was engaged for the season, but tbat if ho liked to serve them m such a way ho could please himself and he would have to abide by tho consequences. Mr White then called Agnow, the defendant. In reply to Mr Hay defendant said had Copeland done liis work well witness could not have dismissed him during tho season. Wa9 paying him 5s more than current wages. Told him distinctly that when ho once began he was to go through and finish the season. Had paid him wages on account. The whole reason for the ca?o coming into court was not bocanso witness was pushed for money and could not squaro up at the time Copeland left. Drummond drove the engino better than C^peland did, but inconveniaoco was caused to witnpis by this on account of bis farm work being neglcefod. After the otoppago at Wyllie'a, J)rummond found Copelaod m Timaru tho wcrjo for liquor. As to Con•way's and Burnbam's eTidonce, what Tfitnos told thorn was if " Copolan'd corner to tho engine drunk, rather than have a row, throw the bolt off and atop tho engine." A« to the 11 diyit work at (he macbino, .witness could do all that was done m two days. At lhi« stage the Court adjourned for Innchson, and on resumtn? W. J. Drummo-id gave corroborativo ovidencn, and wa< crossexamined at length by Mr Hay. Witnom was poiitiro tbnt tho oontraot was mado foi the aeason, and that Oopclanu left on his our account. Witness admitted endowing t cheque " Agnew and Drummond," but he hod po authority to do tbie

1 :jr*J>ruranie:id. wfi- of l:il wKnc-s, eavo particulars of a n;rivrs:.lUm IV: wi!i:.-S:> li.id with Agnow m Ximnr,:, «!ien Hi-. IV 1:1. r admitted that ho had bren tngage:l fir tho season Walter JeiTriy proved lo putting thu mill nnd engine m working order, anil to Copolniid telling him that ho nMseng.-igo.l forthosunou To Mr Hay : Ho 6aid that ho only knew of tbo ropairs done by Copeland from Agnew. The Qbargo of 8s a day waa not out of tho way ; wituc-sj got 103 a day for tho work ho had done to the mill. m , .. . This closod tho case, nnd Mr White, m reply to His Worship, said that ho bad no ovidenco to chow item for item what work Copeland had done on the machine. Ho relied for tho most psrt on the fuct that Copoland was engaged for the sea-ou, and that leaving as be bad done, bo bod broken hyi agreement. His Worship shortly renewed tho case one save iudament for £18 lfls, and oosls £± 14s. J. iV.sorv. R. and J. S. Buthorfordt claitn £53 Is7d. Tho particulars were:— 7 weoks service, £1G 3s 2dj 3 months wigos m lieu of notico, £30 ; three months board and lodging, £10 5s ; total, £05 8i 2ii ; by cosh, £12 6s 7d, leaving claim as nbove. Thcro was a cross oction Rutherford Broi. 7. Fraser, claim £10 153. Mr White appeared for Frasoifaud Mr Hay for tho Rutherfords. Mr White stated the facts of tho cas<\. In February, 1887, plaintiff entcrod into tlio service of tho defendnnts as manager of tho Otatanniti estato, Southland, at a salary of £120 a year and found. In getting to the station plaintiff had incurred £3 m expenses for himself and dogs. Ho romaiuod a» manager until 30th March, ISDO, when defendants without good and reasonable cause discharged him. Fraserclaiinod that defendants wero indebted to him ns set out above. j— .Jln s Co lt(une>(..>i l \ Rroo.' lftUar ho only got a weok'a notice, but c!aimofX~ll)oj three montha as customary, j As to tho cross action it miy be horo stated that particulars wero : —To wages paid ;D. Fraser m excess of instructions 37 weeks' at 5s per week, £9 03; travelling expenses paid D. Fraser, £1 \o> ; total, £10 15j. ; Mr White having thus opened his case called the plaintiff (Fraser) who proved to the parlioulars as set forth. To Mr Kay : Had been a shepherd provions tj Ukine chargo of tho station. Did not understand that he wns being eont down as manager as an " experiment " because ho hari never managed o place before. Wns ia the habit of drawing cheques, nnd evory month submitted a statement to Grade, Maclean and Cj. for the liutherforda. (IdenliGcd some of tho entries uiude m his books.) Had never rendered an account for his expenses m going to tho station until ho got nolico to leavo; this was not an Afterthought. Waa not aware that it was the practice for men to poy their own expenses. Nothing was said about " notico " at the timo tho engagement was made, but witnes3 had spoken to R. Rutherford about it m March. Witness wanted a boy, und waß jure that Mr Rutherford had not said that ho waa not to exceed 15s per »c.'k for him. Ho gave particulars of the boys ha had engaged. Coming to Douald Friuer ho said thut he had been engaged at Ids 1 or week, bull hat io July, 1889 liofcoJ faia wjjis increased to£l per week. Had charged Uuthcrforda 30s aa his expenses. Mr ILiy here et3ted that ho had a mice of documents, but could not find any worthy report among them Witness further stated that his claim for board and lodging was a fair ono, and that Ito had made enquiries about several situations, but had been unsuccessful. Adam McTnto.«h, who had many years of station experience, gave evidence ns an "expert" that a manager was entitled to three months' notice of dismissal, m the abs.nce of any special agreemont. Donald Feaser said that be had worked en the station for 12 months at 15s per week, and having got experience, applied for and was given 20s per week. Had somo experience of farm work beforo going to the station. To Mr Hay he said that shepherds wero thcro for musterine and other purposes. This was plaintiff's case, and the calling of R. Rulhorford opened the defendants' case. Ho engßged Fraser at the 6aaie eolary as tho previous manager, hut said nothing about notice. Fraser took the pofition, and on 1 visit made to the station said that he must have a boy, and witness said that he could get one, provided tho wages did not oxceed 15* per week. Did not know that the hoy was getting £1 per week till seven da,TB after Frasor left. After giving Fraser noiico to leuve, witness s.iw him at the station, and agreed to pay him up to tho end of April — pay him for a mjnth as notice of closing engagement, and his expenses £3 if this was acceptod Wos a station owner of experience, and the custom was to givo managers one month's notice where no special agreement was made. To Mr White : TJavo never paid expenses of men coming from Duneain or Christchurch. In our letter only gave Fraser one week's notico, but was really willing to give him a month. Can give no reason for only allowing him tho woek. Tho boy was engaged among other things to look after the station m Fraser'a absence. F. LeCren, called an an expert, said that one month's notico was uauul for managers m the absence of agreement to Ibo contrary. John Rutherford givo corroboralivo evidence of the terms of tho engagement, nothing being eaid a? to notice, and thnt when a boy was engased not inoro than 15» por week waa to ba paid to him, and E. Bichnrdenn, jun., gavo corroborative ovidenco oh the notico point. The taking of evidence was concluded at 6 10 pm. nnd argument between counsel on the notico point being adjourned, the court rcso.