Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, September 25.

(Before I. N. Watt, Esq., R.M.)

Nolan v. Worsp.—Claim L2O, for wrongful dismissal. This case was partly heard on the 12th inst, and adjourned to wait the arrival of the steamer Plm'be. MrMansfoid appeared for plaintiff, Mr Stout for defendant. Plaintiff, who was fireman on board the Phoebe, stated that he signed articles on July 9, for six months, at LIO a month After serving for two months, on the vessel arriving at Port Chalmers one Sunday, the engineer asked him to rub down the engines. Witness said that was not required to be done on Sunday, on which the engineer told him he could go ashore' next morning On that morning witness told Captain Worsp thattijoengineer had “sacked” him, and the captain said he was to consider himself “ sacked.” Witness had been a fireman for twenty-live years, and had never known the engines to bo rubbed dojvn on a Sunday, except on one occasion when in the same boat, and then the engineer said he would never have it done again. Witness had been at great expense through being turned adrift at Port Chalmers—losing time, his passage to Sydney, and money for board

and lodging. It was witness’s watch off on the day in question.—Cross-examined ; it is not necessary to wipe the engines while they a - o hot, for they are always left on a Sunday. I refused to do it solely because the day was Sunday. I sued defendant for wages up to the time [ left, and the amount was paid into Court. I do nob know that by the articles 1 am liable to be discharged at any port in the Australian Colonies—Mr Stout considered that plaintiff must be nonsuited, as it was impossible for a contract to be considered as existing and rescinded at the same time. Plaintiff had sued for and recovered ilia wages up to the time of dismissal, and had therefore no further claim. —Mr Mansford contended that plaintiff by recovering the amount of wages up to the time of his dismissal had not obtained all that was duo to him, and was therefore justified in bringing this action.—-Judgment reserved.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18730925.2.9

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Evening Star, Issue 3307, 25 September 1873, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
363

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Evening Star, Issue 3307, 25 September 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Evening Star, Issue 3307, 25 September 1873, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert