LAW REPORTS

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2508, 8 July 1915, Page 9

LAW REPORTS

COURT OF APPEAL A CARTERTON CASE STRANGE CLAIM FOR WAGES . When the' sittings of the. Court ofAppeal (first division) were resumed yesterday, His , Honour. Mr. Justico Dcnniston presided, and associated with him were: Their Honours Mr. Justico Sim,_ Mr. Justice Hosking, and Mr. Justice Stringer. 'Die business before the Court was an appeal from the decision of His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) in the civil action in which . Elizabeth Mary Joseph Brogan, storekeeper, of Carterton, sought to recover the sum of £838 6s. 6d. fromi the Public Trustee, executor and trustee of'the.will of AVilliam Moriarty, deceased, storekeeper, • formerly of'Carterton; The Public Trustee had been appointed trustee by the Court in succession to J. J. Mead, the executor mentioned, in;the will. In the original action the claim was for ,|SOO alleged to be owing by Moriarty to th'e 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 jn 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 claimed the wages duo 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 til© property, in 1906, and by tho bequest in the will. The claim, it,was contendwas barred by the Statute cf Limitations. At the' close of the plaintiff's case. .Mr. Maurisell formally moved for a non-suit, on the ground that the claim was statute barred, ■; and . His Honour reserved the point'for legal argument at a later stage. Tlie jury returned the following answers to tlie issues submitted to them(l) Was the late William Moriarty indebted to tho 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 behalf of the plaintiff for investment?— Yes. (3) If "Yes," was this money invested in property in Hi"h Street) Carterton, for'£4oo' and the balance in the purchase of furniture 0 — No. ' ; ' ' .The questions of- law connected with' tho caso and the motion for judgment were argued" at a later' date and on Juno 4 His Honour delivered a reserved judgment in which he reversed /the findings of. the jury and held that the plaintiff, (Miss Brogan) was not. entitled to recover. Judgment was accordingly entered for the defondant. (the Public Trustee) with costs according to 1 scale ■as on a claim for with £10 10s.for second day, and witnesses' expenses and disbursements. From this decision Miss Brogan now appealed. Mr. A. Gray, K.C., with him Mr. P. L. Hollings, of Masterton, appeared for the. appellant, while Sir John Findlay, K.C., with him Mr. T. E. Maunseil, of Carterton, appeared for the rospondent.' v ' Legal. argument had not concluded wihen, the . Court rose last evening, and the further hearing was adjourned until 10.30 a.m. to-day.