Supreme Court.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 262, 16 March 1869, Page 2

Supreme Court.

NISI PRIUS. This Day. (Before Mr Justice Gresson and a Special Jury.) His Honor took his seat in Court at ten o'clock precisely. Bovby v. Reed. The hearing of this case was resumed. John Tucker Ford was recalled, but was not in attendance. Mr Garrick thereupon intimated that the plaintiff's case was closed. Mr Williams briefly addressed the jury, saying that he believed they would come to the conclusion, after hearing the evidence of the defendant, that he was fully justified in discharging the plaintiff for habitual neglect of his duties. Charles Reed, examined by Mr Williams : I am the defendant in this action. I engaged Mr Bovey in England in February, 1864, as manager of my stations. The agreement produced is the one that was signed at the time. A great deal was said as to the management of the stations when I engaged him. Mr Garrick objected to evidence being received of anything that was antecedent to, or contemporaneous with, the written agreement. His learned friend could not go into verbal instructions. Mr Williams contended that it was quite competent for him to give evidence of verbal instructions given by the defendant to his manager after the agreement was made. After argument, his Honor allowed the objection . Examination continued : I shewed Mr Mr Bovey, in England, a copy of the written instructions that were read from the book yesterday— namely, those addressed " To the manager ot Charles Keed." It was before and after the agreement was signed that I shewed the copy of the instructions to the plaintiff. He looked at them several timeß. Mr Bovey left for New Zealand about three weeks after the agreement was signed. I sailed also for New Zealand a month after him. I recollect Mr Bovey arriving on the station in June, 1864. Mr John Tucker Ford was manager of the station at that time. I to <k delivery of the station from Mr Ford, Mr Bovey assisting to draft out the sheep. Mr Bovey came out without a power of attorney, and Mr Ford could not have delivered the station to him. The books kept on the station were the labour and day logbook, shepherds' books, ledger, the day book, cash book, store-book, order book, quarterly re urn book, and letter books. These were broucht on to the station a few weeks after Mr Bovey arrived. They were in his charge. F cannot say that they were distinctly handed over t6 him. The property book contained the written, .instructions. I or one of the

mm

cadets always kept the labour and log book, and carried on all the correspondence of the station. We kept no other books, except my bank book and my cheque book. It was understood that Mr Bovey was not to be responsible for those books that myself or the cadets kept; he was responsible for the sheep arid cattle tallies being properly entered in the log. Mr Garrick said he did not now wish to take up the time of the Court, although it was clear to him that this evidence was inadmissible on the pleadings. He would not now raise the objection, but would hereafter ask his Honor to direct on the point of law. Examination continued: Mr Bovey was responsible for the ledger, and day book, and cash book. They were on the station in his charge. He made an attempt to keep those books, and he did so to a certain extent. Were those books clearly and explicitly kept ? Mr Garrick objected to the question . His Honor said that the question of the learned counsel was certainly objectionable on two grounds— objectionable as a leading question, and as a matter of infereuce which the jury had to determine. Examination continued : The plaintiff's attempt to keep the books was very badly performed. There are several errors in the ledger. There is a mistake of £10 in the addition in Mr Bovey's account. I noted the errors in the document produced. The document produced is a copy of the errors noted down by me. [The witness went on to explain the errors.") The shepherds' flock books were tolerably kept for the first 18 months after Mr Bovey's arrival on the station; afterwards they were not kept at all. For the first 12 months the store-book was very fairly kept; since then, it has never been balanced, or the dates entered. The store-book was given into Mr Bovey's charge. All the station books were kept in Mr Bovey's office. He had to keep all the books, except the log and letters. They have not been kept as commenced. There are entries made in the books by others besides Mr Bovey. The entries were not kept entered up in the store-book as stores arrived on the station. Invoices were sent with them. There was no balance-sheet ever struck by Mr Bovey that I saw. I was off the station about 18 months during Mr Bovey's time. The instructions with regard to the rations were not complied with. Mr Garrick said there was no instruction as to any particular entering of the stores to be kept, and the evidence was therefore clearly inadmissible. Objection allowed. Examination continued : No rations were weighed out for a considerable time. Mr Bovey left on the 20th August, 186 S. I requested him several times to give me a balance-sheetof the yearly expenses of the station. Two years and a-half before the plaintiff left, I asked him to make up the accounts. His excuse was that he had no office, and in 1866 I built him an office. At the end of the third year, when he asked me for a cheque for his salary, I refused to give it to him until he had balanced the books. I only paid him on his promising that he would give me a balance-sheet if I gave him a cheque, as he had bills to meet. On the 12th of May, 1868, •when I gave him a month's notice, I requested him again to balance the books. On the 29th of June, I considered his fourth year ■was up, and asked him to bring his books to me. I found that the quarterly return was not posted up at all. I offered him the cheque on condition of his promising to balance the accounts, and give me my four yearly balance-sheets. I told him that in the event of his declining to do so, I would Tceep the quarterly return book as evidence against him of the negligent way in which he had kopt the books. I then locked up tlie quarterly return book, leaving all the others with him as usual. He remained at his books for six weeks. He had been at them about five or six weeks before I took the quarterly return book away. . The books were not made up or the balances produced. Plaintiff did not check wire that arrived at the store; there were 3£ tons missed out of twelve tons. If I hadn't discovered it, it would never have been found out. He very seldom checked the ston s a? they arrived with the invoices. Mr Bovey was fully aware that he was not alowed to keep live stock of his own on the station. He repeatedly asked to be allowed to do so, and I declined. This disallowance wes included in the written instructions. Jf the shepherds' flock-books were properly kept, they would shew the number of sheep kept for the use of the station, the number missing, and so on. They do not shew this, and it is impossible, therefore, for a manager to make up a stockbook shewing the average number of losses, and the number of sheep on the stntion, &c. I have complained to the plaintiff several times about the manner in which lie carried out the instructions. I did so in the first six months he was on the station, and throughout the whole time. I gaw that he was incompetent in the very first week, and told him that he was only fit to be a working manager at £60 or £70 a-year. The memorandum of 16th February, 1864, as to bouuses is in my handwriting. The sheep were free from scab during Mr Bovey's time. 1 believe that the death?, losses, and missing sheep have exceeded the rate of 4 per cent, per annum during Mr .Bovey's time. The books have never been kept, and it is impossible to ascertain this, as there is no balance-sheet. In the first year there were 120 sheep lost from tutu; in the second, 270 were smothered in a gully ; and in the third, the deaths were considerable after. the snowstorm; the fourth year there were some 200 hoggets mining. 1 meant the average during the whole term. Plaintiff was to receive £200 if there! was only a loss of 3 per cent, during the whole term. There is no question that the losses are over 4 per cent. In the first two years, the sheep shorn in the grease did not average 4!bs per head ; nor yet in the third, j The fourth year theayerage was 3Jlb per shdep. The Court adjourned at one o'clock, resuming, at 1.30. . » . !