RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT, CAMBRIDGE. Friday, June 17th.—[Before H. W. Northcroft, Esq., R.M. CIVIL CASES. Edgar v.Montrose.

Waikato Times, Volume XVI, Issue 1399, 21 June 1881, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT, CAMBRIDGE. Friday, June 17th.— [Before H. W. Northcroft, Esq., R.M. CIVIL CASES. Edgar v.Montrose.

This which lasted all day, was a case of wages, (amount £20) which plaintiff alleged to be due from defendant and was hrst brought forward for hearing on Friday, April Bth, since when it has been adjourned from Court day to Court day, so as to enable defendant to obtain evidence from Canterbury and Wellington. It was finally heard on Friday last. The defendant having paid into Court, 10s a week more and all the costs. Mr McGregor Hay for defendant and Mrßeale for plaintiff. As the case has excited considerable' interest since it was first brought forward, and as the judgment given is a most eccentric one, we deem it advisable to publish the evidence produced on both sides. John Edgar, the plaintiff in the case, sworn, said he was a reporter residing at Cambridge. Begun to work for defendant on 2Sth February. Ivess paid me 30s a week as Hamilton correspondent, duties occupying about an hour every day. At defendant's request by letter I came to Cambridge on 28th February. Served defendant as reporter, paragraphist, and short-hand writer, duties occuping my full time and often to 2 and 3 o'clock in the morning. Defendant congratulated me on the character of my work, with a week's notice he discharged me at the end of three weeks, giving me no reason for doing so. Performed duties for Star and Herald at defendant's request, for which he likewise congi atulated me. My charges are fair and reasonable, and the amount still due and owing. By Mr Hay : Never made any agreement with defendant as to compensation. When with Ivess serving apprenticeship was supposed to devote whole of my time to his services, on condition that I was to have full reporter's wages after that. I never received money from Mr Montrose. In presence of Mr Ivess told Montrose I was getting 30s as Hamilton correspondent, a sum which he said he could not afford, but offered me to remain at £1 weekly. Never made any fresh arrangement after this. Would swear did not go to Cambridge as reporter for 20s. When with Mr Ivess, when serving apprenticeship, was supposed to go wherever sent, my expenses being paid. I think myself a competent reporter Montrose offered me £5 in settlement of my account, which I sternly refused. Land Court reports were always my own production, and were always published, sometimes condensed if space did not permit. Never did work for other papers. Robert Carrick, short-hand writer and general newspaper reporter of 1 twenty years' continuous experience, deposed : I am competeut to speak as to the customs of the tiade. Knew plaintiff, and had opportunities to observe his capabilities as short-hand writer and reporter for last six weeks. Is a very good short-hand reporter, and has exceptionally great aptitude for reporting, and has done Land Court meetings very well indeed. These meetings were difficult to report. Wages for a junior reporter are from £3 to £4. Its not their duty to report for outside papers, and if they do so they are paid extra for it. The ordinary charge for such telegiaphic reporting to Star and Herald is 20s weekly. Am a first-class reporter myself, and my income from all sources amounts to about £350 yearly. Have reported Upper House for X. Z. Tunvt,, and received 20s per diem. So convinced am I of Mr Edgar's capabilities that I have got him to vide his telegrams to the Waikato Times and Press Association for me. I should think plaintiff to be worth from £3 to £4 per week. Sydney Smith, Sub-Editor of Waiwvto Times, &aid he had about six years' experience in the colony as journalist and reporter. Attended meetings with Edgar, and consider his reports very lair. He has quick perception, and condenses very well. Should think £3 a week a fair wage. I have sent telegrams to other papers while reporting, and been paid for it. I think it would be worth about 10& or los per week. I should consider £4 or £5 a week a fair reporter's salary. This finished the evidence for the plaintiff. The case was then adjourned till the following Court day, defendant to pay costs £4 8s 6d. The following is Mr Ivess evidence for the defendant, given on Friday, the 10th inst., at Cambridge :— By Mr Montrose : I am a newspaper proprietor, residing at Christchurch. At a meeting in the Mail office, at which defendant, plaintiff, and self were present, Moutioae offered plaintiff £1 as Hamilton correspondent, to which he did not dissent. Considered if plaintiff's services wei'e fully employed lie would lie worth 30s weekly (he having but little experience), or, if partially, 5s per day. If I ordered Mr Edgar when in my employ to send telegrams to other papers he would not be entitled to receive extra pay. Was prepared to excuse Mr Edgar's style of work, owing to the low rate of wages. By Mr Beale : Mr Edgar would not be so much employed as Hamilton correspondent, as he would on the staff at Cambridge, and it would be reasonable to raise his salary it removed from Hamilton and taken on the staff permanently. An efficient shorthand reporter would be worth from £4 per week. If I could not attach any value to his reports I would not allow a reporter to go from day to day to report meetings. £5 per week is the highest salary I Know pan! to a reporter. The arrangement made by me with Edgar was for six months, with a view to bis getting a higher salary after that time. If Edgar was an efficient shorthand reporter he would be worth £4 per week. As Hamilton correspondent, could not remove Edgar to Cambridge at £1. Charles Otho Montrose, sworn, said : I am a journalist of 16 or 17 years' experience. Have filled every rank in a newspaper from reader-boy to editor. It is not customary for reporters to receive extra pay for Press telegrams, unless there was a special agreement. It is customary for proprietors to direct reporters to send telegrams to other papers without extra pay. Have done so myself as a reporter and sub-editor. The agents now supplying the Press telegrams for the colony get no pay^ at all being simply part of reporter's duties. The agreement between self and Edgar was made in the presence of Mr. Ivess. Remember the whole circumstances as dear as a few minutea ago. I then, agreed to pay plaintiff £1 a week as Hamilton correspondent. When Edgar came to Cambridge after the expiration of hitf engagement with Ivess I had no intention of ' employing 1 him permanently. I told him when he entered my employ at Cambridge that if he could keep hooka. I would have given him £2 but as he could not I said I would give' him £1 saying " I admit it's little but you are at liberty to leave me without notice." He then , asked me what his duties would ' be "at that rate which I explained. s He attend the I.and\CDurfc and, do general ,fjrepor|iing.>E;, Plaintiff ,wa? never' employed up to 2 o'clock in the morniug/ except on j one ocoasion, and, then, only to 12, o,' clock; By Mr. 7 3ftfe\ f^efA* 'tt&^Sf fo'l benefit wh^Ver for tho tehgimi hub

by Iplaintiff to Star and Ecmld. I'll swear there wan no disturbance between Edgar and myself which led to his dismissal. I did not tell him the next morning after the case of McTavish v Ivess tbairhis services would <be dispensed with. This 1 answer I wish taken doirn.\ I'll absolutely swear Edgar accepted tne £1 per week when he came to Cambridge and went to work on these terms. It was necessary for Mr. Edgar to be in the Court when there was anything important going ou. 1 never told him to go to the Court sometimes. Edgar's reports were not trustworthy. This finished the evidence for the defence. Mr. Hay, in addressing the Court on behalf of his client, said he intended to call two other witnesses but they were not subpcenad Mr. Ivess's evidence being all that was required. It was one of the most extraordinary cases he had ever come across in the whole course of his practice. Not only was the demand an extraordinary one reduced by £12 but was liable to be reduced about £16 or £17 more. The plaintiff had thrown himself out of any credit the Court could grant to him, but before entering upon this point ho would simply oommpnt upon the conduct of the Coun.>el for the pluintifr as far as he had known. Mr. Beale : If Mr. Hay has any charge against me let him make it to the proper quarter. His Worship thought it regular and consistent for lawyers to comment upon the conduct of each other in cases such as the one then before the Court and gave '■orae instances as proof. Mr. Beale : " I positively object to any such proceedings. ' His Worship. Ido not think Mr Hay is out of order in doing 1 what he has done. F Mr Hay thinks you have been guilty I of any irregularity, he lias a perfect right [ to draw attention to it, and then it is for me to judge. What Mr Hay refers to is about the correspondence in the newspapers, the plantiff living closed his case, takes to writing to the papers for the purpose of showing other evidence. Ido not think it is right. Mr Beale. It has benn done oh the other side first, defendant having published the first letters. His Worship : I first saw the leader in the Waikato Times. Mr Hay may proceed with the case but he must not be personal. Mr Hay : I will not say anything personal, but merely give my explanation. Mr Beale : I have documents to show that what I have done in this case is justifiable Mr Hay then referred at some length to the conduct of Mr Beale in demanding the costs of the adjournments, before the the cju-e had been finally heard. And also to the articles which appeared in the newspapers bearing upon the naso, but was again interrupted by Mr Beale. His Worship : I do not think that people make personal remarks when writing to the papers about me so long as I am in the public seivice. Mr Hay again proceeded to dilate upon the conduct of Mr Beale in continually making applications for costs. It could not be that Whitaker and Sheehan were hard up for money, but he thought it was merely done for the purpose of embarussing his client or hiniseif . The real cause of the delay was that Mr Montrose could not find Messrs ivess and Hankins to get their evidence at the time and was telegraphing all over tho place. His Worship thought the delay was caused by the Christchurch Couit, the magistrate there having adjourned the case from clay to day. Mr Hay : I have a number of papers here which your Worship has no doubt seen. I could not have thought it my duty to address your Worship upon this pomt — the false and scandalous statements relative to your Worship — but by not referring to them you may have thought it Avas owiug to my acquiescence in them I repudiate the statements such as have appeared in the papers referred to. I have had experience of your Worship's conduct during the whole time your Worship has sat upon the bench, and I have always found my clients have had fair and impartial hearing, and your Worship has always given satisfactory justice. So far as that part of the accusation goes which states your Worship favours the rich man instead of a wages man, it's false, 1 have been engaged in cases before this court when there was no counsel for the other side, when your Woiship has assisted the poor man more than tlie other. His Worship : Mr Hay, will you go on with your address, we don't want to be sitting here to hear what you havo got to say on that matter. Mr Hay : 1 fully recognise the importance of a press fearless and independent, but I must say I think that in this case the liberty of the press has been converted into a license ; that in these articles which have appeared in these papers (pointing to his tile) the Waikato Times has commented in a manner which is quite unjustifiable on the proceedings of this Court, the case being at the time siibjiidtcc, it is improper that it should be commented upon m the manner referred to. If the case is commented upon untruthfully, and with no view to the public good, the case is aggravated. Had the writer taken tioublc to inform himself of the law of the matter lie would have found it was not his Worship's fault. It appears to me that these articles have been promoted with a view of getting back some money which had been advanced to the plaintiff to conduct the case. There is another matter which appears to me as very important indeed. I observe that the name of my learned friend Mr Whitaker is upon these particulars subscribed at the bottom, F. A. Whitaker. F. A. Whitakec is part proprietor of the paper in which the scandal was published. His Worship : Mr Whitakor, as a rule, does not exercise any supervision over the paper. It is not fair to accuse Mr Whitaker, for I am certain he had nothing to do with them. Mr Hay : Well it was his duty to go to tho Editor or the parties who had control of the paper ; his name jbeing upon the proceedings in this case, and desire them to comment no further, it being improper, but he has not done this. This commenting on the case only ends last Saturday, wheu it culminated in a threat to institute an enquiry into the matter. His Worship: Yesterday's paper is really laughable. Mr Hay : These things have boen going on from time to time with Mr Whitaker' s sanction . His Worship : Ido not sanction that, Mr Hay, if the articles had any effect on me whatever, I would not have sat on the bench to-day. Had Mr Whifcaker anything to do with thorn, I would not have sat on the bench at all. Ido not care what is said about me, so long as it does not hurt. It ia only truth that hurts and not falsehoods. Mr Hay then referred — somewhat inandibly —to the connection between Mr Whitdker and the Waikato ,Tnt£3 designating that paper as "a demoralised print," and following up with, tho remark that the sooner Mr, Dyer and himself " jyot aoouple of eourrildus journals or ruffianprints of a newspaper to back them up, the better for their clients. " The claim of the plaintiff in this case, hd> -proceedeclf was -otlgif ally one of £§2, wMg^tw/beenvr^^Kto' - J JB2O,' and the of toe claim

an acd^t of SOa^rtfiit togetherj^tj^ all cosfe. There hdd been a tender iflaae by Mr Montroso ofjfil for expenses and £4 for wages, wfiicn sum was all that was due at the time. Mr Montrose had •Said insis evidence that the offer was ao<4§ptjediskd,that plaintiff had commenced Xusiness according to infitruotions. This was certainly an agreement, if anything was. The whole affair then being 1 reduced to a matter of agreement it was unnecessary for him (Mr Hay) to proceed any further t on the^jßubjept.,™ evidence of ' Mr Ivess and Mr Montrose, and partly by that, of- the plaintiff/Winself, the agreement was for'SEI ; and* this was as much as the plaintiff was worth. As to the speqial telegraphic" corf espoh-* dence to the Herald and 'Star, Mr Montrose speaks as a man of 16 or 17 years' experience, and says that; he knows no, such custom of a reporter getting paid for such work. This, had been corroborated by Mr Ivess. On the other hand, they had the evidence of Mr, Smith arid Mr Carnck ; that of the 'former being very uncertain, he having had but little experience. The evidence of Mr Ivess, being a disinterested party, and consequently unbiassed, was reliable. He would place no confidence in Mr Carrick's evidence whatever, nor anything he had said at all, as he considered that gentleman had told an untruth. The evidence of the plaintiff was taken that he might leave the place to go to some lucrative situation, but he found he had been' in the Court from day to day ever since. In conclusion, he thought His Worship would have no trouble in arriving at the conclusion that upon the morning after Edgar arrived in Cambridge, accoiding to the con tract,' he commenced work on the terms mentioned, and was cpnsequently entitled to be paid accordingly,, and that the judgment should be for £1 per week. Mr Beale, on behalf of the plaintiff, then proceeded to address the Court. With reference to what his learned friend had said concerning the payment of the 30s a week, he could not believe that Mr Hay should advise his client to pay more than he could prove to be duo. It had transpired in evidence that previous to the Ist of March Mr Edgar was acting as Hamilton correspondent for the same ! newspaper under a certain arrangement. There was nothing more necessary on this point. What was now w anting was evidence on the point of the real contract, which the defendant alleged to be made on Mr Edgar joining the staff at Cambridge. As far as actual facts went, it was shown that the plaintiff's time was fully occupied after coming to Cambridge. Mr Ivess himself had said it was a most reasonable thing to raise Edgar's salary if brought from Hamilton and put on the staff at Cambridge. The same witness had said that when Edgar's apprenticeship had terminated it was understood that he was to get higher wages. He had also raised plaintiff's jsalaiy after the first three months of the engagement Mr Ivess had also said that a person doing the work which, Mr Edgar was known to have done was fully entitled to between £3 and £i a week as a reporter. But, the witness could not say anything about, a contract between plaintiff and defendant, which the latter had said did take place and which the former had as positively denied, There had' been only some trivial conversation about Hamilton conespondence at which Mr Ivess was present, but this had noting to do with the case whatever. As to the evidence concerning the real contiact, the defendant had .sworn there was an actual oontraot made for £1 a wcolc, .but thib it had taken him (defendant) about three months to prove. Great delay had beon occasioned so as to obtain the evidence of experts, on the face of which they hod been grossly misled, in consenting to adjournments at all. It had been on the faith that this evidence was to be brought forward that the adjournments were granted, but no attempt had been made to get it whatever. Mr Hay hero interrupted Mr Benle and do->ired to know whether his remarks had any direct reference to him. Mr Beale then proceeded : Mr Ivess, ho had said could not tell them anything abjut the ieal contract. Mr Montrose hai Mvorn a contract was made, bub ,tbey had no proof whatever to support tint, whereas his client hadbworn wlion cio sC!examined by Mr Hay that ho was. not employed at any rate of wages, no agreement whatever, beiujj made, nor any contract being entered i,ufco. Was it reasonable to think that Mr Edgar, after serving his apprenticeship, and getting 30s then, would go , to Cambridge after having learned his business, und devote his entire time, ni^ht ami morning- to the busme&s of Mr Montroso for 10» less 'i The probabilities were so great, and the supposition so anomalous, that such an undprstanding contract could never have, been made at the time. The defendant would jjot offer such a low' rate of wagoH, he would not in.sulfc a person nu rely by offering it. If the defendant had paid 80-> into; Court, was it likely ho would do so if his contract entitled him to pay but 20d ? On this there could be no two opinions. The plaintiff h.id acted most consistently throughout. There being no more doubt on this point,, then came the question of what was a fair rate of washes. Mr Carrick had said that £4 a week for a reporter like Mr Edgar was a fair rate of wages. Mr Smith had said from £3 to £4. These gentlemen wore disinterested witnesses, ami wore the only peraons capable of judging Mr Edgar's capabilities, having worked alongside him. Mr Ivess on the other hand had had very few opportunities of judging what plaintiff could do, .13 it was only when Edgar iiist began reporting that Mr Ivess saw his composition, but not since then, and he would therefore say that the evidence of Messrs Smith and Carrick was alone reliable on this point. Mr Ivess had said Edgar was entitled to a rise if removed from Hamilton. He had also said an efficient short-hand reporter — and Mr I Edgar was one — was entitled to from £i a week. No evidence had been produced to show Edgar was not a competent short-hand reporter. Mr Iress had ajso said that if he could not attach any importance to the reports, he , would not allow a reporter to go from day to day to report meetings. Mr Edgar had been permitted to attend the Lands Court daily, and if no, importance could be attached to his reports, was it likely he would be permitted to go theire. He had sent telegrams daily to the Star and i Herald, and was it likely that Mr Montrose would allow him to put his name at the bottom if they were erroneous and unreliable reports These facts spoke for themselves. With regard to the item for sending Press telegrams, two experienced witnesses had sworn that it was usual to charge for such work, and that it was not to be included in the reporter's wagea. ' • ' < His Worship in giving judgment said he would ignore the evidence of plaintiffs witnesses, Messrs Carrick and Smith. He would not give their, evidence any consideration whatever,' it, being unreliable. The evidence he would rely upon was that of Mr Ivess. , It,was nofc likely ,that he (Ivess), would give evldenoe in favotrf of Montrose,; it was more likely he would give it in. favour of Edgar. Mr Ivess *if as a maH of extensive ( experience ; he , Had started several papers in the colony,' and should; be able ,to 'give a fair and impartial opinion. '333b thought ( there' was an agte^nieht J 4iit'er6d into "between froth" parties, &ati/as that' sworn to by Mr Mont-J rose, though Edgar had denied it pr had; paid no attentidn-'tb jo} irhen made/ If r Ivess had' said if? would be rdasonablefto raise Edgar's aalary if brought "fro' ml

fffiEamilton, and taken on the staff at Cam* bridge, but he had again said that if he ■was partially employed, he would onlyj be worth 5a per day. Again he said, "if I assisted him, lie would be only worth from 30a to £2 a week." Andfurther he says, "a reporter of only five or six mouths exnerience, would not be capable of taking a report worth £2 10s or £3 per week. He would give judgment for the plainti£Efpj[ i fchs3r^n:ojttiit l^id into Court (30s a- week"), witkcpstsfor the defendant. Jhjsincluded^^c^sjfeß^atsjJ^jia^t^ beginning of the case. ~ Mr. -dßeale -thought'that^ftft costs in* curreditbylthe^last (hearing* of the case after the defendant .had paid the_extra mri&y"into~tße'~C6Tlf^aSSSßTWSß bo paid bytKe')'plairitifE^^^f?. His Worship replied that this was not b&. plaintiffiMitf aaidi *®hld hare to pay , the- w whole costs incurred since ,the beginning, of the. chsbj^ Mr. Beale, then drew hi» >Werahips attention, to the f fac ( t that a ne y^aa, violating his own decision as'''th'e minutes of the fiuMt hearing wo,uld show ,the case being adjburne'd'on^'condilio'i^thaf'thS'aefen(Taut should .pay ,the cost of the adjournments viz,, ,£4; 8s 6d.,,, In, -support; *of his argument Mn IJeale quoted from the Resident Magistrates Ao^of>67,Bection 44 which showed that as the defendant had paid a certain amount into Court with the co ( sts ( alreadypin,curred-.on^both sides which" 1 they admitted t<rbe duo* and which then became the property of the' plaintiff the Magistrate , had.- nQ right to interfere with ifc and refund it ,to ( the defendant, and also that it -v^as 'against his judgment as 'to the, costs made ati the first hearing. , '' / y, , , His Worship admitted Mr, Beale's argument, having been conVince.d ( of 'pis errol 1 , and reversed his 'judgment."," It having been agreed ,that ,the' defendant, according to the first ruling 6f the Court should, payrthe costs.. -flf -jthe first hearing/ His Worship said liew&uld not allow costs to Mr' Smith nor Mr Cafrick, nor tr.ivelling expenses, though ' thi "defendant had admitted it, (their expenses) and paid the amount into The | plaintiff Would have topay the costjs of the last hearing. , ( , / ' ; His Worship : What v arc the costs of to-dnly? 'r "' ' / i." ''r. '1 Clerk : £2 10 YounWorship. His Worship : poes that include mileage for Mr Hay,? . Clerk: No:' " ' " • f His then added a guinea to the costs, for solicrtjor/s mileage. Mr Beale objected to 'any such thing being added, there being a second solicitor in the place, irrespective' 'of Mir Hay. He would ask his Worship if a solicitor had been brought from Dunodm by defendant woukHiis expenses be allowed. His Worship replied that they certainly would not. Mr Beale : Then where is the line drawn ?, Might.not a" solicitor 'ba brought from Ngaruawahia, Huntley, Mercer, or Auckland,' and his expenses paid likewise ? „ . , |'O , L His Worship ruled' himself right in granting Mr ' Hay's expenses. This terminated ,tb,e case.