Tuesday, 21st May. (Before Mr O. C. Kettle, S.M.) CIVIL BUSINESS.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 8552, 21 May 1895, Page 3

Tuesday, 21st May. (Before Mr O. C. Kettle, S.M.) CIVIL BUSINESS.

DKPBJTDED CASKS. Tommy Cann v. W. Sing and F. Sing, olaim £15 8s 6d. Mr Hogg for plaintiff Mr Barnicoat for defendants. The olaim was for money alleged to have been advanced to the plaintiffs while they were in Palmerston and also at Wanganui. W. Sing, in his evidence (examined by Mr Hogg), admitted that the money was owing bat he had a contra account. His wife knew nothing about the money advanced, nor was she present at the transaction. The plaintiff had the option of joining defendant and his wife in partnership in Wanganui. Defendant's name did not appear in the business. Mr Barnicoat then examined the plaintiff as to particulars of the sum claimed. He was on the best of terms with the plaintiff, and did net want to fall out with him. The plaintiff had the services of an interpreter, and on being asked by His Worship if he could speak English replied " No." In hie evidence he said tfhrongh the interpreter) that the money w»s advanced in Mrs Sing's presence, she speacing to him first and stating that she wanted it to go into busineis in Wanganui. The plaintiff here produced a note of the moneys lent and the interpreter was asked r" to read if, but h» admitted that he could not read his own language although he could thoroughly understand everything his countrymen eaid ia Chinese. Plaintiff then proceeded to give from memory particulars of the advances of money from time to time. He left Sing's place because he was chased out by Mrs Sing about 1.80 on a Sunday morning. A jug was thrown st him while he was in bed about an hour previous to this. It was an iron weight pitched at him that made him I move out of bed and an iron ohopper furthered this. Mrs Sing owed him no money. He was suing husband and wife. The takings at the shop in Wanganui were taken by plaintiff the first week »i partner — that was 87s 6d. The money for the paperhanger and painter (£1 each) was taken out of hie own pocket and not out of the shop till. Mrs Sing stated that none of tbe £15 was lent to her nor was it paid at her request. Plaintiff stayed nearly a week at defendant's place at Palmerston and paid nothing for his board. Had made no secret that the business in Wanganui was hers— her name was ever the door. The money to start tbe „ business was that given fey the Chinamen «• ■ her children at the time of their New Year -—that Vfas tbe Chinese custom <o to do — in the form of a gift. .The money for the panerhanger, etc., was out of the box in whioh the takings were plaoed. Plaintiff was not actnally in partnership, but that was talked of in connection with the oyster season. Gave plaintiff £2 4s 6d on a Saturday morning, and after he had been away a i week he came back agaia. The row was ~ over the smoking of opium, the money fer which he took out of the takings. He nevar asked for wages. Mr "Barnicoat contended that on the plaintiff's own showing Mrs Sing had nothing to do with the advance of the money. Hb Worship said it was his belief that* a good proportion of tho money had gone into the business, and he conld deal with the case under the equity and good oonecienoe clause of the Act, as he thought it was provided to mest a case of this kind. He thought in all fairness to the plaintiff he was entitled to judgment against both defendants— against W. Sing far £1 19s 6d. and against the defendants jointly fer the difference of the olaim of £15 3s 6d. Judgment entered up accordingly. Court costs 28e, counsel's fee 265. H. McDonald v. John Gordon, olaim £4 5§ for balance of wages. Mr Barnicoat for plaintiff, and Mr Watt for defendant. All witnesses in this case were ordered out of Court. The plaintiff stated that he worked for the defendant, a contractor, on 16th March last. Had been working for him a month before, and got 15s a week and found. Did not make any arrangements when eni gaged in March. That was the usnal rate, \.and he was used to the work — carting. ■ Worked 7 weeks and 4 days, and reoeived 80s for two weeks' work on 28th Maroh — it was on a Thursday. Defendant gave plaintiff a cheque for £1 10s, being owed for tobaooo. Left plaintiff owing to a quarrel on a Monday morning, defendant telling plaintiff to clear out of the yard. When it came to settling np defendant wanted to deduot 8* 6d and 2s 6d, and said he would only pay at the rate of 10s per week.— -By Mr Watt : Brady was getting 15s par week, so also was Bheeh«n, the latter telling plaintiff so. Had worked for Gordon for 12s a week for 3 weeks, because he (plaintiff) was hard up, and thought it beit to take that than to walk the town. Was paid 16s a vriek after that. Other people were paid at the same time as him. Did not leave because he illused defendant's horses, and did sot bear that charaoter amongst the men. Had not ill-used the horses that morning when defendant told him to dear out. Defendant offered aim £1 9a for wages due. That was - the amount he had down in the book. [At this stage the plaintiff reduced his olaim to £3 16s fid, the difference being for tobacco.] The defendant then gave evidence, stating that when he engaged the plaintiff he told him the rate of wages would be lOs per woek. Was paying Sheehan the same money— that including board in both cages. First paid plaintiff this last time on 4th April. The balance cams to 18s, Gave him a oheque for £1, aud told kirn the 2« could be returned. He drew the obeque on the date plaintiff was paid. [.Cheque book here produced, tbe blook snowing the date of the oheque in question to be 4th April.] Mr Barniooat asked that the oheque be produced, and in this His Worship concurred. Ihe wage* «ooouu6 (witness continued) for plaintiff when employed on a prerioin occasion was at bit boms, Xhe witness was (hen eg.

amined by Mr Barnieoaft as to the various entries in the book before the Court, to show that only in the , plaintiff's out was the date filled in at the top' of the page. The date 18th March was put on the book ' the day plaintiff came to him. — By His Worship- -Would swear positively that the agreement was 10s a week Evidence was given for the defenoe by W. Eales, one of defendant's employees, who was paid by cheque on 4th April, just before plaintiff was paid. Examined br Mr Barnicoat, witness, after some hesitation, said, in connection with a recent sheep case heard last week, that he couid not remember what Gordon had said about some evidence, £Le oonld remember a conversation that took place on 10th April, but not one that took place a few days ago. At this stage the Court adionrned until 2 pm. Upon the Court resuming, the cheque in quettion was produced bearing date April 4th. Mr Watt contended that by the evidence tbe rate of wages at 10s per week was proved. In answer to Mr Barnicoat the defendant stated that the book required had been sent for and could not be found. Pressed by His Worship, the defendant could not say who it was ho sent, and then said he thought it was the cheque that was wanted. [His Worship : " Air Gordon, you are perjuring yourself. Leave the box, sir; leave tbe box!"J His Woiship then said, addressing the defendant— "Mr Gordon, I want to give you a chance to explain yourself about this book before taking any further proceedings. It is time perjury was pnt down by this Court. When I catoh persons telling deliberate untruths I must try and put s> stop to it," The defendant interjected during the above remarks that he had sent Mr A. Barns, junr., for the book, but he had not gone for it. The plaintiff was then put in the box again, and examined re the date of the cheque, and said he must have been mistaken about it, and had not noticed it at th« time. His Worship decided to adjourn the case until 4 p.m. for the pro duation of the book, stating that he would like to get at the whole truth of the matter. J. and A Lukatchewski v. Alex. MoDoneli, olaim £16 10s for wares. Mr Hogg for plaintiff, Mr Barniceat for defendant. 'Xhe latter counsel put in a medical eertifioate showing that the defendant, who was not in Wanganui, was incapacitated by serious illness through acoident and therefore asked for an adjournment for two months. Mr Hogg considered that a fortnight's time was all that was neoegsary. The brother of defendant being put in the box said that defendant had lost his memory for fully a year or more. In answer to Mr Batniooat witness said he had mad* the arrangements with the plaintiffs to look after the place at the rate of 26s per week, the dispute being that it was at the rate of £2 per week. He saw hi* brother last Friday, and he was not fit to talk on business. He might recover. His Worship said it seemed hopeless to think he would reoover. After some farther remarks from the Bench and counsel the Court decided to adjourn j the ease until 3rd June. (Left sitting.)