Magistrate’s Court.

Waipawa Mail, Volume XXIX, Issue 5703, 22 April 1911, Page 1

Magistrate’s Court.

(Before Mr S. E. McCarthy, S.M ) After we went to press on Thurs- 1 day the following cases were dealt i with:— F. Sturm v. F. Burgess, claim £SO, ■ made up wages £24 10s, damage for dismissal in lieu of month’s notice £ls, work performed collecting accounts, etc., £l3 10s. Defendant counterclaimed for £lO 13s 7d. Mr Dolan appeared for plaintiff, whose case was that at the end of October defendant and plaintiff agreed that £2O was due to plaintiff. Plaintiff ceased to be employed by defendant, and payment was asked later for the amount. Promises were made but not kept by the defendant and court proceedings had to be taken Plaintiff now asked the Court to say whether he was not entitled to this amount as now claimed, but which previously waß being waived if the £2O were paid. £2O was the balance in October. Defendant could not pay and plaintiff agreed to wait. Work was done for defendant in November, and a balance of £4 10s was claimed in respect of it. For assisting new accountant to take hold of the books, for collecting accounts, for preparing a balancesheet, for waiting on Mr J\ M. Bloor at Waipawa and for expenses £l3 10s was claimed, and in lieu of a month’s notice, a month’s wages, £ls was claimed, The plaintiff, and Messrs T. M. Bloor and J. M. Verran gave evidence in support.—Mr Hewitt appeared for the defendant, who contended that the amount claimed for wages was incorrect, as the plaintiff was not in defendant’s employ for the whole of the' period claimed ; that the hours worked had been overstated in the time and wages book, making the amount paid and to be paid greater than due; that in respect of the items amounting to £l3 10s, it was contended he bad not done the services claimed and that he had been paid for what had been done; also that plaintiff had been told in September he would not be wanted after about four weeks’ time. The defendant made a state-

menb of the various matters, and referred to his books. Under cross- ; examination as to their accuracy, he , had to admit they were incomplete as records. Mr Bloor said he considered | he employed Sturm for the first sale j and had paid him. In regard to the second sale lie remembered nothing !of Sturm in the matter. The other items were also disputed. It was j claimed by the defendant as a result that not only did he owe Sturm nothing bub also that the amount of £lO 13s 7d was due to him from the plaintiff. In giving judgment for the plaintiff for £2O and costs, £4 10s 6d, His Worship stated that as defendant was away so much from the mill, and could offer no clear testimony ns to the facts, or support his evidence from the books, he would give a verdict for the £2O balance at the end of October. The other amounts would not be allowed. The counter claim for £lO 13s 7d would be dismissed without costs. Judgment was given by default in the cases C. W. Seymour v. Waimarama Pohara for £3 6s and £1 costs; D. Howse v. E. Orbell for £7 10s and £1 0s 6d costs; J. B. Finlay v. A. J. Grant for £6 19s lOd and costs £2 3s.