LAW REPORTS

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2467, 21 May 1915, Page 9

LAW REPORTS

SUPREME COURT A CLAIM FOR WAGES In the Supreme Court yesterday, before His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) and a common jury of twelve, hearing was commenced of the civil action in which Elizabeth Mary Joseph Brogan, storekeeper, of Carterton, sought to recover the sum of £838 6s. 6d. from the Public Trustee, executor and trustee of the will of William Moriarty, deceased, storekeeper, formerly of Carterton. The Public Trusted had been appointed trustee by the Court in succession to J. J, Mtfad, the executor mentioned, in the will. Jlr. P. L. Hollings, of Masterton, appeared for the plaintiff, while Mr. T. E. Mannsell, of Carterton, appeared for the Publio Trustee. The claim was for £500 alleged to be owing by Moriarty to the plaintiff for wages up to August 6, 1906, and for interest thereon, £338 6s. 6d. According to the statement of claim, the plaintiff went to Carterton in 1884, and was employed by Moriarty, first at 15s. per week, then at 30s. per week. She had not been in the habit of drawing_ her wages in cash, and, in 1906, Moriarty purchased a property for her for £400, and acknowledged that he owed her a further sum of £500. Moriarty died on January 26, 1912, and bequeathed Miss Brogan a sum of £1500, but this was reduced by the Supreme Court under the Family Protection Act to £1000. She now claimed the wages due with interest thereon, or alternatively she claimed the amount as a sum'acknowledged to be due and accepted by the deceased for investment.

By way of defence the Public Trustee gave a general denial to the allegations of debt. It was said that any debt had been paid by the purchase of the property in 1906, and by the bequest in the will. The claim, it was contended, was barred by the Statute of Limitations.

At the close of the plaintiff's case Mr. Maunsell formally moved for a nonsuit on the ground that tho claim was statute barred, and His Honour reserved the point for legal argument at a later stage.

The jury retired at 5.30 p.m., and returned at 8.40 p.m. with the following answers to the issues submitted to tliem:—

1. Was the late William Moriarty indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of £500 on August 6, 1906? —Yes.

2. Did the deceased agree with the plaintiff to hold the sum of £500 on half of the plaintiff for investment?— Yes.

3. If "Yes" was tliis money invested in property in High Carterton, for £400 and the balance in the purchase of furniture?— No.

The questions of law connected with tho case and the motion for judgment were set down for argument on Wednesday' nest.