LYTTELTON.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 3376, 3 February 1879, Page 2

LYTTELTON.

Monday Feb. 3,

(Before J. T. Rouse andH. Allwright, Esqs.) Deunkenness and Cheating a Disturbance in a Public Hoube.-O. Rylan, arrested by Constable Coles, was charged with this offence and fined 10s.

Civil Cases.— G-eorgo Atkinson v. William Riley, claim £20. Mr H. N. Nalder for plaintiff, Mr Joyce for defendant. This was an action brought to recover the sum of £20 for wages alleged to be duo by defendant, who is the proprietor of tho Lyttelton Herald, to plaintiff, an employee on that journal. Plaintiff stated that ho was engaged by the defendant as Editor of the Port Lyttelton Herald. He was engaged first as canvasser at £3 for the first week, the defendantpromising to give him his full value for evory week afterwards. I started as editor of tho paper at the time of its second issue, I wrote the leading articles, both leaders and locals. I applied to Mr Riley on several occasions for payment of my wages. He said he was negociating a loan, and offered me £12 in paymeut of my claim. I refused to take that amount. I considei that my charge of £6 per week as editor of the paper is a verymoderate charge. I charged £3 per week as canvasser. Mr Riley always expressed himself as satisfied with my work. Mr Riley on Wednesday last offered to compromise the matter for £20 cash, and to give mo a three months' engagement at £3 10s per week. A compositor is under engagement at the office at £1 per week. By Mr Joyce: I have never been editor of a paper before. I did not engage myself as a bookkeeper. The paper would never have beon brought out. if it had not been for me. The paper has been issued ten times. Mr Riley wrote the first article. I have written five leading articles and two sub-leaders. I have not written any articles that have not appeared. I wrote an article for tho first issue of the paper, but Mr Riley inserted the one he wrote instead. Mr Riley promised to pay all my expenses while canvassing for him. I have not kept an account of what I have expended while conducting Mr Riley's bußiness in Christchurch. Before I came hero itwas customary for me to spend money for the paper I was engaged upon while looking after its business. 1 have spent £4 while looking after Mr Riley's business. I do not know whether tho paper has been a paying concern. I have been about 4 years connected with journalism, and about 2 i years before that was in a lawyer's ofiice. Re-examined by Mr Nalder : I wrote all the local matter as well as the leading articles, and saw tho paper out at every publication. W. Eastwood : I am a compositor at the Herald office, and am paid £4 per week. Mr Atkinson has been writing for the paper; ho did all the writing except the shipping. On Monday last Mr Atkinson and Mr Riley had a conversation regarding tho account, and I recommended Mr Atkinson to , take £18 in payment of his claim. Thcro was an offer made to keep Mr Atkinson on for three months at £3 per week; he was to do the shipping work, book keeping, canvassing, and to go to Christchurch on off days, to conduct the business of tho paper at his own expense. Mr Atkinson refused £3 per week, and it was agreed to go on at £3 10s. The paper was not paying, and the course adopted was to reduce expenses. There has not been much local matter in the paper; a largo number of the locals were cribbed from tho Christchurch papers, besides clippings. I have been on newspapers for some time, and consider that £6 per week is far too much to pay for the services rendered by Mr Atkinson. When Mr Riley offered to engage hini at £3 10s per week. Mr Riloy said that Mr Atkinson waß not to write any more leading articles, as they were a disgrace to the paper. Mr Atkinson certainly did not manage the paper ; I refused a quantity of his manuscript as not worth putting in. The paper is a bi-weekly paper. H. Morgan, a compositor, was examined, and stated he was paid £3 per week. He only knew Mr Atkinson as supplying the compositors with copy. I do not know what his other duties were. Wm, Riley : I am a printer and proprietor of the Ly Mellon Jlcrald. On Pec. 19 plaintiff was introduced to mo, and I engaged him to assist in the paper. I offered to engage him at £2 10s, and he said that he would do the full canvassing and editorial work for £3 per week. I had a man in Christchurch doing the work there at £2 10s. I used to give plaintiff 5s every time he -went to Chrißtchurch to pay for his train and other expenses. At plaintiff's request I ordered the books, and they arrived in tho office oa Jan. 14. There is no entry in th» ledger, and the day book is entered up to Jon. 18. Tho order book has b&ea posted up recently. His duty was to poat up tho books. I agreed to pay plaintiff £3- per week. We had no further conversation about salary until about Jan. 27, when I gav*Mn» £5. At that time, plaintiff offered to waume his duties for £3 10s, and pay his expanses to Christchurch. There was no understanding ! about a quarterly engagement. Whea I asked him to go to Chrietchurch on Friday, h« refused. I then told him that unle>s& he went and and looked after the commercial part of the business he was of no use at all, as he had no leaders to write. When I asked him to go to Christchurch, ho aeked me about money, and I inferred he meant hie back wages. Plaintiff never gave any account of the £3 charged as expenses. By Mr Nalder : When the new arrangement waa inado I offered plaintiff £18 in • settlement of hia claim o£ £31. £5 was to 'be paid down in cash, and the balance in two or three days. The £5 was paid. When I asked plaintiff to go to Christohuroh he said he wanted money? He had been with me for six weeke, and had drawn £8. I have taken a quantity of Mr

Atkinson's manuscript off the file, as I did not consider them good enough to appear. For the first two weeks I was satisfied with Mr Atkinson's work as a canvasser. I have been connected with newspapers for years in various capacities, and was -proprietor of a newspaper on the West Coast when I paid the person who did the editorial work 30s per week. Accused having addressed the Bench, judgment was given for £14 15s and costs.