The Courts

Tuapeka Times, Volume XLV, Issue 6136, 11 February 1914, Page 3

The Courts

WAKDEYS. TUESDAY, Wtli EEliillAivY, 1914. (Deioro J. 1(. liurtholo ew, Esq., Warden). .Uanuku Gold Miniujj Co. (ill- Einlay- : on) .—Protection of water races. Aiter Hearing the evidence of Mr Thomas .Tilling, acting-secretary, who Ba,id it was proposed to carry out some prospecting, the application was granted. Hugh M. Uuilter (Mr Finlayson).Surrender absolute oi spYcial claim Ao. 4-1 Bunglown, and application foi special alluvial claim of 12 acres in same locality.—Surrender accepted and application granted, three months be. mg allowed within which to commence operations.

Claim for Wages. llabt. Webb (Mr I'inlaysonj v. J. X. ■lohnson (.Mr i'letcher),—Claim of £l7 IDs for wages due for work done in defendant's claim, &-c. Defendant had paid into Court the sum of £1 5a for wheelbarrow, and repudiated the balaiwcoi the claim which he asserted had ijuen p»id. iius case was partly heard at the previous sitting of the Court.

ilr i'lnlayson, for the plointill, said lie understood defendant pleaded payment of the claim .and on this point there would be a conllict of evidence, the plaintili' denying having received payment though he had signed the pay sheets, it had been arranged that the plaintili' was to be puid beiore Christmas, and on the :11st December, when he (plaintiff) called on the defendant, the pay sheets were produced and signed sheet by sheet. Defendant then, it was alleged, put them in his safe and, as no money vas forthcoming, the plaintili' reminded defendant that he had come to get payment. No money, however, was forthcoming, and plaintili eventually left without receiving payment, and two days later came to Lawrence and commenced proceedings. He called Robert Webb (plaintili), who deposed that on a Sunday towards the end of \oV. IUI3, he went to see defendant about a stable he wished erected, and after this had been discussed.he asked him whether he could have some money before Christmas. The defendant replied that he would settle up with nim before that date. On 21st December he again went to see defendant, taking with him an estimate for the stable which Johnson approved and promised to order the timber therefor. The subject of wages was • then mentioned when defendant produced tie pe-y sheets and asked witness to sign them, which he did. These were then put away and as there were no signs of the money being forthcoming witness reminded defendant' thati he had come to be paid. Defendant then asked (witness if he remembered the day he (defendant) and his brother went to Burnt Creek and he replied that he did. Defendant then said that on that day (14th October, 1912) he had left a parcel of 9oz of gold in his front room and that on his return] there were only 6oz. Witness oslved who he accused of taking it and he replied ' " I cannot accuse any one else but you." Witness remarked to this that defendant was? a very suspicious man and it was a strange thinj that during the fourteen months that had ejapsed he (defendant) had stayed at his house and boarded at his table and never men- . tioiiecl (he matter ? Defendant then

laid : " Make good the three ounces oi gold and then we will tain." Got no money after signing the pay sheets. i\io o*e was present. Witness then left aud no money had since been paid. irad had a conversation with John son Biiice. He wished to have an adjournment of the case. To Air Fletcher : i am 77 years of age. % memory is as good as over it was. Was working for Johnson on the 14th October, 1912. Saw no

money on the 21st December end Johnson did not pay him £.34 10s in cash. To Mr tfinlayson: When he signed the pay sheets he had simply followed the usual practice in Waipon. < This was the plaintiff's case. ii'or the defence, Alfred Gadsby Johnson, teacher at the Technical School, Dunedin, remembered the 14th October, 1912. He wa» lit Wuipon with his wife. Saw Webb at hiß brother's house. They went to liurnt Creek that day. Did not remember seeing Webb when they came back. Webb could have slept in the house had he desired to do so. On Sunday, 13th October, saw his brother blowing gold, but he did not see it weighed.

cook at Johnson's claijn, | remembered Webb working at Johnson's house on the 14th October, 191-2. W itaess was working in the garden. VackGee, who was also working in the garden, corroborated the previous witness's evidence as to Webb working at Johnson's on the 14th October. iNo one else was near Johnson's house that day and no one could have been there without their seeing him.

At this stage the case was adjourned to yesterday's sitting, when the evidence for the defence was continued.

John T. Johnson (defendant) disposed that on the 14th October, 1912, plaintiii was working at h!;s hojuse. His brother aud sister-in-law came up for a week's holiday and they all left .about 1(J o'clock for the Burnt Creek dam. Webb was left doing some carpentering work about the house and the two Chinamen digging in the garden. Had cleaned some gold the previous night and in the morning he weighed it, and put it in a drawer. When leaving he locked the door of thi> room in which it''was, leaving the key on the outside, and then locked the door oi the dining room, taking the 'key oi this door with him. Keniemibcrcd when lie was away that the key of the bjnek door would unlock all the doors of the house. On returning at night ho examined the gold and found it 3oz short. The only way he could account for the gold disappearing was by Webb having taken it. No one else couid have approached ths house without being SO en. Ou 9th November, 1912 obtained £35 to pay Webb's wages (document aud bank hook produced) and in addition to this lie hud about U27 in his safe. The next time Webb came to him for payment of his wages was on the 21th October, 191;', but he was unab'lo to pay him then as j lie had left the keys oi his sale in Dunedin. The next time plaintiff came to him was the 21st December, just about tea time. While plaintiff was having some ten witness went and got the books and when Webb came into the room witness said "1 lind I owo you .IMG lUs." 'Plaintiff replied " 1 thought it was £47." Dad the cosh ou the table.: Witness then said "What, are you going to do about that geld wuich disappeared from the Iront room when you were here last ?" He said, '" What gold? 1 don't know anything about the gold." After some further talk plaintiff said " You are a suspicious man, Johnson. You tl ought you_ were right when you accused others " (naming them). .Witness then said, - The amount is £4O 10s ; J reckon if 1 deduct £.12 for the gold taken wo will be square." Witness thin counted out £34 10s when plaintill' remarked that he might ts well have the bit that is coming. The pay sheets were then put before him and he signed them. Was absolutely certain he paid him the £V34 10s.

To Mr Finluyson ; The money which he obtained for the payment of Webb had been in his house for thirteen months, waiting for him to come for it. He denied thut he had been 'asked live times \ for payment. He owed a good deal for wages and other liabilities. Webb had only asked him once for payment nrior to the 21st December. Had had no conversation with him in regard to erecting a stable except prior to October, 1912 ho had asked what it would cost to erect a stable. The matter of a stable was not mentioned on the iilst December. The money was on the table before the plaintiff put pen to paper. Spoke about the gold before the sheets were signed. The plaintiff practically gave iu to the arrangement.

Counsel for both sides having addressed the Court, His Worship, in giving his decision, said the case was an extraordinary one, indeed the most extraordinary case that had ever eonie before him, anil he found great dilli- ■ nlty in dealing with it. The plaiutilf, an "Id man of 77 years, told a story which was apparently genuine, viz., that he lad signed the pay sheets for the n mount claimed but that he did not ;.et the money On the other hand the defendant, who was a young .man, hail idven his evidence in a very straightforward and bona fide maimer- Either the defendant was speaking the truth or was guilty of falsehood and fraud There were no outstanding features in the evidence which could assist him in coming to a conclusion, but the point that had impressed him was the manner in which the defendant had given his evidence, and the fact that had he been desirous of over-reaching the plaiutill'it would have been a simple matter for him to have claimed to have paid the full amount £+6 10s instead of £34 10s. The loss of some gold appeared to him a side issue but evidence had been lead to show that 3ozs had been lost and that only one person had had access to it. He was of opinion that the evidence of the defendant was true and that he had paid the plaintiff the sum of £34 10s deducting £l2 for the gold alleged to have been taken. It was well known that the memory of men of the age of plaintiff was unreliable and in this case the old man smarting under what he considered a grievance had allowed his memory to mislead him. Judgment was accordingly given for defendant who did not ask for costs. MAGISTRATE'S THUHSDAY, 10th FEBKUAKY 1914. Before J, B. Bartholomew Esq., S.M. Straying Cattle, Samuel Woolford was charged by the Borough Ranger with allowing a cow to wander on lona street on the 13th January Defendant did not apper and after hearing the ranger's evidence a fine of ss, with costs 7s was indicted. Judgment Summons. John McCiae (Mr Moore) v W. Guttery claim of £4 4s on a judgment summons. There was no appearance of defendant against whom an order was made for the payment forthwith of the amount claimed, together with £2 Is 6d costs, in default 7 days imprisonment.