DISTRICT COURT.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 1875, 6 January 1875, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

THIS DAY

(Before His Honcr Judge Bfckham.)

HOSKING V. THOMAS.

This suit was brought by George Francis Hosking to recover the sum of sixty-eight pounds ten shillings (£6810s) for money payable by the defendant to the plaintiff for the work and services of the plaintiff by him done and rendered as the hired servant of defendant. Particulars of services are as follows:—April, 1872: To keeping the New Zealand Quartz' Crushing and G.M.Co's. books from April 29th, 1872, to September 16th, 1873, inclusive 72 and one haif weeks, £72 10s; for making arrangement to hand the company's books over to A. Pittar, at £2 2s per day, £8 8s; 'bus expenses to Ouelmnga and back, four days at 3s per day, 12s; total, £81 10s. From, this ihe amount of £13, money had on account in ] 872-3 was deducted, leaving £68 10a.

Mr Tyler for plaintiff; Mr Hesteth for defendant.

■; Mr Tyler applied for an adjournment, owing to the absence of material witnesses and a document required to be produced by the notice giver. He was not in a position to go on with the case, amd would agree to the payment of the costs of the day. Mr Hesketh could not aceeed to the -adjournment, and covnbatted the argument of Mr Tyler. From the 22nd of December thu plaintiff had been m a position to prepare his case, and consei quently had no excuse if he came into Court unprepared. ■ Mr Tyler said that owing to the recent holiday's it had been impossible to issue a subpoena before Monday last. The question (he apprehended) was whether the adjournment would injure the case: of defendant, and if not, all that was required, was that plaintiff should pay the costs of the day, as in all similar cases it was the practice. Mr Tyler subsequently-said another objection might bo taken in that his learned friend had not tho necessary authority to appear as required by the rule, though ii appeared in the declaration. -■■;.;;,-'

His Honor said considering the time of year, and the difficulty which the plaintiff may have experienced in making preparations, the Court would bo scarcely justified in compelling the plaintiff toproceed with his case under these circumstances, lie could not see, moreover, that the defence would be either way affected, if the costs were paid into Court by the plaintiff. The amount of costs was then discussed. The defendant b«ing present from Coromandel in attendance upon the case, Mr Hesketh submitted that Mr Thomas was entitled to a "professional" fee, being a mine manager and surveyor. The Court decided to allow witness los. per day. Mr Thomas was sworn and questioned as to the reason he had come from Coromandel so early as Thursday last, ifc having been casually brought out in Court that a steamer had left Cororoandel on the Saturday following, for which defendant might have waited. Defendant said there had btfen no certainty about the steamer; she wa3 not advertised to leave, and ho was therefore obliged to start on Thursdnjr, or stand

the chance of being absent at the time the case was to be heard.

It was decided to allow 8 days' expenses to witnesses.

Some discussion arose as to what fee should be allowed to counsel for defence.

Mr Tyler recorded his protest against professional fees being increased when lawyers came from Auckland, as thero »rere members of the profession in the district who could have conducted the case; and he therefore respectfully insisted that his learned friend should be regarded in the light of a solicitor residing on the Thames. : Tho Court decided to allow two guineas. Mr Hesketh mentioned another witness —Barry, who had also come from Auckland. He contended that the witness was entitled to 10a per day. The schedule provided for payment of 10s per day to witnesses resident over one and within 5 miles of the Court.

His Honor considered the witness entitled to his 10s.

The costs were then made out, and amounted to £14 7s.

Mr Hesketh submitted for the Court s consideration the advisability of a change of yer*ue. It -srould be more convenient to hold the Court in Auckland, and the expense would be less.

His Honor said there could be no doubt but that had this case been heard in Auckland, the expense would have been half what it was; but it could only bo done by consent of the parties to the action.

Mr Tyler said the plaintiff would offer no objection to the case being heard in Auckland.

Ifc was ultimately determined to adjourn the case to Monday fortnight, the 25th of this month, the case to be heard in the Auckland Court.