RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Western Star, Issue 1349, 27 April 1889, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

■ Friday, 26th April, 1889. (Before H. McCulloch, Esq., R.M.) CIVIL CASES. Chas. Campbell v. C. Neilson —Claim, £ll 5a sd. Judgment for amount claimed ; costs, £3 Oa 6d, including professional foe, 10s 6d. John Sperry (Property-tax Commissioner) v. Piper.—Claim, 10a 4d. For plaintiff with costs, 16s. John Gardiner v. D. Anderson.—Claim, £4 12s lOd. No appearance of either party; struck out. Same v. Win. Carroll and John Fahey.— Claim, £9 12s 3d. No appearance of either party ; struck out. Robert Campbell v. G. Havelock. —Claim, £l4 Os Bd. Judgment for amount with costs, £llos. Same v, Andrew Mills (Wairio). Claim, £39 13s lOd, balance of account on unsatisfied bill of sale. His Worship said it would be necessary to produce the bill of sale. Adjourned for hearing at Invercargill on Ist May. Same v. J. B. Baird,—Claim, £7 15s 10d. Judgment for amount; and costs, 2 )s. George Ross v. R. Foster.—Claim, £74 10s lid, balance of account for wages. Mr Macalistor for plaintiff and Mr O'Reilly for defendant. The sum of £53-5s lid was paid into Court to satisfy the claim. Counsel for plaintiff having explained the nature of the accounts, said that the claim was for wages at the rate of £2 per week as from sth Dec., 1887, to February, 1889, and the sum sued for was the balance at present owing, after all deductions had been made. Mr O’Reilly, for defendant, said the whole question was as to the terms of the agreement. The agreement had been that plaintiff should receive 7s per day and not £2 per week, and the amount paid into Court represented all that plaintiff was entitled to. George Ross, plaintiff, deposed he was a miner at Hound Hill, and that the amountclaimed was due him for wages. Ho made an agreement with Mr Foster a week or a foitnight before sth Dec., 1887, to represent his (Poster’s) share in the Sluicing Company and work for £2 per week. There was no one present at the conversation, I worked sll the time from the sth Doo., or whenever

away I put some one on. Witness worked six days a week and at all hours. Have made application to defendant for amount claimed ; he put mo off, saying there would have to be a meeting of shareholders before he could pay. To Mr O’Reilly ; —Never had a share in the Company, or did I pay Concher to represent my share. It is not a fact I bought half a share from Concher; had not the slightest interest in the Company. [Mr O’Reilly was proceeding to road a notice served on some trespassers on the Company’s claim to which Ross’ name was annexed as belonging to the Company, when Mr Maoaiister objected to the document being read or put in. Mr O’Roidy claimed the right to read the notice and insisted on doing so. After some little time, during which the witness denied having given authority for his

name to bo used, the notice was read.] Witness saw Chester and Orange working in Foster and party’s claim; did not know whether they were trespassing, nor if they got notice not to trespass. Witness would not deny he told several people he was a partner; believe I told Foster I had a half share. I was thinking of buying a halfshare from Concher. Was working from sth Dec., 1887, till 15th Feb., 1889; was away twice but couldn’t say how long ; altogether it might have been five weeks. The first time I left Fitzmorris to represent me, and paid him to work; on the last occasion I got Hopgood, to whom I owe about 30s. Can’t sav how much I paid Fitzmorris. Don’t owe Coneher anything, and have no agreement with him at all. To tho Magistrate Did not tell Foster that Fitzmorris and Hopgood were working for me. Richard O’Brien deposed he was one of the partners iu No. 2 Sludge Company. Ross was working as Foster’s wages man. Ross was not a partner to his knowledge. Witness was not working the claim but was constantly about; Ross was always at tho claim, attending to bis work. £2 a week was rather under than over a fair wage, John Concher, partner in the Company, deposed that Ross performed his duties in a satisfactory manner. Before Ross started Poster asked witness how much Ross had been getting from the other company, and witness told him 7s a day, but added I thought he would take £2 per week. From that conversation understood Ross was to get £2 per week. He was never a partner. To Mr O’Reilly:—Ross owes me some money but can’t say how much until the store account is made up. No working time was taken as far as witness was aware. James Kirton, another partner, deposed Ross had no share in the claim. If the shareholders ware working he was working. If wanted at 4 in the morning or 12 at night Ross was there. Do not consider £2 a week too much. Mr O’Reilly said the case for the defence was that plaintiff had been engaged at 7s per day. The time was regularly taken from 13th Jan. by Garden ; from Dec. 5 to that date it was not taken, but five days a week were allowed for the time, and according to the time taken plaintiff was only entitled to the amount lodged. He called Robert Foster, the defendant, who deposed he was one of the shareholders in No. 2 Sludge Channel Company. Witness employed Ross from Bth June, 1888; he worked prior to that, and witness had made allowance for it. Witness engaged Ross at 7s a clay; the agreement was made at Thornbury, and witness’ son was present.—To the R.M.:

Witness did not deny Ross was working for him from December till Juno, but he had allowed him wages for that time.—To Mr Macalister : No arrangement was made between Concher and myself as to payment of £2 a week. Witness refused to pay Ross until there was a meeting of the company. When application was made for payment no mention was made of £2 per week. Charles Foster, son of last witness, deposed he was present when the agreement was made between Rosa and his father on Bth June last at the refreshment rooms, Thornbury; the agreement was 7s a day. At Round Hill when Ross applied for payment my father told Ross as he was partner they could not have a squaring up until there was a meeting. —To Mr Macalialer : When the arrangement was made Rosa said he had worked for two years for Concher and had got nothing. My father said it was a shame, and that he could go on for him at 7s a day, and he would receive his wages either weekly, monthly, or anyhow he liked. Louis Garden, a partner in the Company, leposed he kept a time book from the 12th January. Was only away a day or two during the whole time, and had allowed Ross for those days. To Mr Macalister: When I was away Guise kept time. I can’t swear time book is absolutely correct; I kept the book myself, but took the time from Guise for days when I was away. I did not put down for working at night. Mr Macalister submitted that on the showing of the witness no proper time book was kept; Garden was not there all the time, and on occasions put down what he was told by another party. Mr O’Reilly said that the witness had distinctly sworn that for the days he was not at the works he allowed full time to Ross, and if there was any discrepancy at all it was that Ross had been allowed for more time than he actually worked. .His Worship referred to his notes, and said there was no mention on them of Garden having sworn as stated. Mr O’Reilly recalled Garden, who stated that he had allowed in the time-book for the days he was absent from the claim full time to Ross Mr Macalister submitted that his client was entitled to judgment for the full amount claimed. The Magistrate, in giving judgment, said that there had been no proof of agreement, but that £3 a week seemed to him the most likely agreement to have been made. Judg. ment would be for amount claimed with costs, £8 Is (Court cost, £3 13s; witnesses, £2 ss; professional fee, £3 35.)