HOKITIKA CASES IN THE CHRIST CHURCH COURT.

West Coast Times, Issue 253, 14 July 1866, Page 2

HOKITIKA CASES IN THE CHRIST CHURCH COURT.

Saturday, July 7, 1866. (Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., R.N.) CIVII. CASES.

Mie v. J. C. Brooke and Co.— Dr. EW ter appeared for complainant, and Mr Nottidge for defendants. Complainant claimed of defendants Lls, being balance of wages due for service rendered to defendants in Hokitika,. and L 8 for the expenses of his jonrney from Hokitika to Chiistchurch. Dr. Foster said that complainant had been engaged to go from Christchurch to Hokitika, and there take the management of defendants' business as chemists. He was to receive a salary of L 5 a week and his board ; but defendants had refused to board him; and, on his persisting in his claim, had given him notice to quit, and intimated that the difference between them must be settled in Christchurcfr. Complainant' had, accordingly, come to Christchurch to make his claim on the defendants for the balance of his wages ; and he also claimed L 8 as the cost of his journey. Mr Nottidge said he would admit Jhe claim for wages for the present; but he would contend that the letter received by complainant from defendant did not amount to a summons to the former to come to Christchurch, and that therefore his client was not liable to pay L 8 charged. George Mie examined— He had been in the employ of J. C. Brooke and Co, chemists. He had served the firm 4a Christchurch. At that time he received L 4 per week. In December last, Mr Brooke engaged him in Christchurch . to go to Hokitika and take management of his business there ; he promised to give him L 5 a week and to keep him. He (complainant) arrived in Hokitika on December 31, and Mr Brooke paid his expenses from Christchurdh. Afterwards defendant objected to keep him, and said he had nob agreed to do so. He persisted in charging Mr Brooke with his board, and Mr Brooke gave him notice to quit. He accepted the notice to quit, and he received a letter from Mr Brooke telling him that the difference between himself and Mr Brooke must be settled by the Magistrate in Christchurch. He had come to Christchurch on account of receiving that letter. He had made an offer to Mr Brooke to settle the matter in Hokitika. He meant to stay at Hokitika. He should either get a situation there, or work out a claim he had there. He was going back when his business was settled. Cross-examined —He did not know Mr Brooke was coming to Hokitika. Did not know a servant ' of his had been arrested there. He might have come to Christchurch on his own business or pleasure in three weeks or a month. J. C. Brooke, examined— He had said the question of complainant's salary must be Bettled in Christchurch, He was under an impression that it could be settled there only. Judgment for plaintiff for LB.

Brooke v. Mie.— Mr Nottidge, for complainant, said that his client sought to recover the sum of L 34 2s 6d, which had been improperly charged and received by defendant from complainant for board while he was managing complainant's business at Hokitika. J. C. Brooke, examined — He had employed defendant in Christchurch as a chemist, at L 4 a week, and he had agreed to give him L 5 a week to go and manage his^business at Hokitika. Nothing had been said about board. He had said he would give him a pound a week more than he «raa then giving him. He had paid his previous manager at Hokitika L 4 10s a week, without board. Defendant had, at first, charged his board under the head "household expenses." He had charged it in a lump, so that he did not discover the charge immediately. An apprentice boarded with the defendant. After a time defendant charged his board Beperately, and then he discovered the charge and objected to it. Defendant charged- 30s a week. He had never paid a manager L 5 a week with board. A man had been in his employ who had greater experience than complainant as a chemist, and he had paid him only L 4 a week, without board. Cross-examined by Dr Foster— The man he had just spoken of was not manager. His name was Ridley • he was rather wild, but was a good chemist. Mie went to supersede a man who had been robbing him. At the hospital in Hokitika they gave the chemist L 4 a week, and, he thought, without board, George Mie examined— Defendant had agreed to give him L 5 a week, and to keep him. In his charges for household expenses he had charged the actual cost for boarding himself and the apprentice, and of a few necessary things which he had named in his account. He knew a managing chemist at Hokitika who received onethird of the gross takings. His income was about LlO a week. The chemist at the hospital received L 4 a week, with keep and washing. Cross-examined by Mr Nottidge— He did not set any value on his lodging at Hokitika. There was a person named Hay in Mr Brooke's employ at Hokitika ; he received only L 4 a week without board, but he did not receive the current rate of wages, and he was dissatisfied. He could not tell exactly what his board cost while he was boarding in Mr Brooke's house. The cost for himself and the apprentice might be from L 2 to L 2 3s per week on an average. The apprentice left, and then he (witness) went to a hotel to board. At the hotel his board cost more than half the sum it had cost to board himself and the apprentice in Mr Brooke's house. , He thought it would have cost still more had he boarded by himself in Mr Brooke's house. His Worship aaid there ought to have been a written agreement between the parties. The evidence of each directly contradicted that of the other ; but he thought that of the defendant was not good on a question of wages, as he appeared to have been a sort of partner. At the same time he considered complainant's claim of 30s a week to be excessive. Judgment for complainant. L 26 2s6d. * *