RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2308, 29 September 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tins Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Cases. Jas. F. Tally v. John Griffon. —L 43 11s lOd, for balance of salary and expenses. Mr Sanders (for Mr Barton) for the plaintiff and Mr Stew ait for the defence. 1,23 11s l()d was paid into Court. The plaintiff said about the 14th January last he engaged with Mr Griffon at the rate of 1,4 |;cr week, and all travelling expenses to be paid. The engagement was thereupon concluded. He asked the question whether his expenses in town were to be paid ; thrse expenses he understood to be expenses connected with collecting money and obt lining orders. Mr Griffin agreed to that, stating that he did n it wish the plaintiff’ to be mean in any way but on the other hand not to be extravagant, lie said witness would have to call at hotel", becansehchimsclf suffered from attack of gout. On several occasions he had mentioned what ho had spent on particular accounts. He was away about eleven weeks out of the thirty-six, and had charged a pound a-wcek for town expenses. He could not specify the actual ex'penditure, as he had not kept an account, not anticipating any future difficulty. It was impossible to do business without expending money. On his oath he had spent one-half more than he had actually charged in forwarding Mr Griffon’s business. Mr Griffon never objected to the expenses, and never asked for an account In cross-examination by Mr Stewart, the witness said he did not include personal expenses, such as clothes, He never rendered an account in writing of his town expenses, but had applied to the defendant for them verbally. Mr Griffon’s clerk, Cullen, was examined to show that certain sums had been paid the plaintiff for trade cxpences. Witness knew Mr Berlin, Mr Griffin’s former traveller, but did not know anything respecting any allowance for trade expenses. The detail of expenees was not regularly given, but at intervals of from two to seven days. On returning from the country journey the expenses were not given in detail, but a memorandum stating the lump sum was handed was handed in. A witness named Maitland, once in Mr Griffon’s employ, said the plaintiff had on one occasion asked for a cheque for Lo for expenses which Mr Griffep declined if) <dvc, as he said he preferred paying thciq in cash. Hearing that plaintiff - was about to leave, he applied for the situation, and Mr Griffon said lie should not have parted with plaintiff had he intended to keep a 'travelcash, F. Bussell, wine merchant, said that ho allowed his town traveller expenses up to 30s a week. It was not possible to do business at a less cost. Mr lliomson, traveller for W, and J. Spoulnr, always had expenses for town travelling. He did not consider LI a week excessive. For the defence it ivas contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to expenses for town travelling, as no agreement had over been made to that dl'cjt. ° John Griffon that said he engaged Mr Tidly at L 4 a week as traveller, and to pay his up-country expenses. The engagement ended last Saturday. During the time Mr Tally had been iu his service LI4S had been paid as expenses. Had a claim been made for town expenses he should not have allowed it, and never heard of any claim for the L2U until last Saturday. He did very little trade with publicans, and the plaintiff had no nee ssity to spend money iu town travelling. Such a conversation as that he (w'ilncssf was subject to the gout, and, could not get about, was never mentioned. He had objected to the boy to the money ob-

taineil by Mr Tully, but not ta the plaintiff himself. His Worship considered that the claim in its present shape could not be allowed, as, before the Court could sanction them, them, they must be specified. Judgmenfc for the plaintiff for the amount paid into Court. (lillon v. Fraser.—A claim for toll due on a cart drawn by two horses, which passed through the Kaikorai toll bar. Mr Bathgat-, for the defendant, objected that there had been no personal se vice. His Worship said that it was necessary under the justice of the Peace Act. Mr Bathgate objected that it was competent either to seize the dray or horses, or to proceed by information or complaint. But an information would not bo sustained, as there was uo offence specified in the clause, and having selected that course the toll-keeper had no remedy. His Worship said that the best remedy would have been the mo-t summary and best remedy. There was also difficult in proceeding by complaint, as it was directed to bo laid under aii Act that was repealed. The proceedings were informal, and the only remedy was to seize the horses and dray. Mr Bathgate said he had a good defence on the merits of the case. He applied for costs, but his Worship said he did consider it would be right to allow costs, as the plaintiff was a public officer, and had suffered sufficient inconvenience by dragging him befoie the Court.