LAW REPORTS

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2480, 5 June 1915, Page 12

LAW REPORTS

> 0 — ' SUPREME COURT ; STRANGE CLAIM FOlt WAGES i i A judgment of interest was delivered , by tho Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) ! in tho Suoreme Court yesterday, in , tho caso of Elizabeth Mary Joseph j Brogan v. the Public Trustee. Tho , plaintiff claimcd that the Public Trus- . tec. as oxeeutor of tho will of William > Moriarty, was indebted to her in tho > sum of £500, and interest. [ At tho hearing, said His Honour, counsel rested his claim on three ■' i grounds: (1) That tho testator was in- . dabted to her in the sum of £500 for ■ wages that had been due by him to l her; (2) that he had executed a declaration of trust as to the £500 in her fa- • vour. and that be was trustee for that ' amount for her; (3) that failing tho ■ other grounds, there was an account stated between them in 1911 showing than £500 was duo by him to her. The defcnco was a denial of the debt, and also a pica of tho Statute of Limitations. 1 "The facts of the case aro rather peculiar," added His Honour. "Tho 1 testator was in 1884 a bootmaker in a , small way of business, not having aay assistant, and doing his own work, and ■ poor, in what was then the village of . Carterton. Tho plaintiff met him in , Wellington. • She was then only 14 ! years of age, and seems to havo come . to Now Zealand as a girl. Her state- , ment is that she was engaged by him ; at 15b. a week and found. The wages | for a girl who knew nothing about , bootmaking, and could not havo known i much about housekeeping, was at that ' date grossly extravagant. She states . that within about six monthß afterwards ha increased her wages to £1 a week, and that shortly afterwards thoy ! were increased to 30s. a week; that in 1887 ho added some millinery stock or department to his business, and then agreed to give her £84 a year, which , wages, for a girl of 17 in a shop would even now, I presume, be considered high. Aftorwards she says lie agreed to give her £2 a week. This was in : 1897. She says she never got tha wages—she was satisfied, and so mattors went on until 1900. Sho does not say that any account was stated, at any rate up to 1900, between them—that is, for sixteen years after her engagement. In 1900, however, sho says sho found : the work too much for her, that her ; health had brokeu down, and that sho wished to retire from tho business, and | that ho said that the amount owing ( to her was £900, and that that was ontered on a scrap of paper. She latert [ entered into negotiations for the pur- ; chase of a house and some furnituro, ' and certain paymonts were made by deceased. A receipt referring to these 1 was found afterwards. The jury 3 found that £500 was owing to plaintiff " by tho testator in August, 1906; and ' also that the £500 was not invested in " tho purohaso of the property, whioh was 3 completed in 1906. His Honour said lie would not have oome to that conJ elusion. "It seems to me," ho said, , "that it may have been meant to show that the £500 that was advanced for tho property was not to be deemed the 9 money of the testator, .nor a gift to her, 3 but that it was her money. This may 8 havo got rid of gift duty, or it may » havo boon taken as a settlement for her 3 if there was no will made in her favour. 3 Tho first question ;that, therefore, 3 arises is, is this receipt au acknow- " ledginent of ail amount owing to the plaintiff on July 25, 1911? In my ' opinion, it cannot bo so read. It seems P to me to be only a statement of what 5 was duo on August 6, 1906. An ac- * knowledgmont to defeat the statute r must bo a clear acknowledgment of an ® account then duo or of a promise to " pay. The recoipt is, in my opinion,. neither. It only says that a certain amount of moneys was received in August, 1906. It is an acknowledgment 5 that in 1911 that money was then due. The acknowledgment must bo absolute. If, howover, it was so construed then to be an acknowledgment, it must bo delivered to tho creditor. This clearly h was not dolivered to the creditor. The y receipt never came into her possession if from the testator. She, as an employee j- of tho executors, found it amongst other a property of the testator, and she had d no business to have touched it or taken d it, and, thorefore, thore was no delivery 3 to her of this receipt." a His Honour also held that thero was iS no declaration of trust by the testator, 0 and that the plaintiff was not entitled j_ to recover. Judgment was given for defendant, with costs according to scale on a claim j. of £500. with £10 10s. for second day, ,] and witnesses' expenses and disbursements. 5-