DISTRICT COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3692, 22 December 1874, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

1 uesdav, December 2JJ, (Before Judge Bathgte.) r .& b f fc t Ciirii . ck , v - v i»cent Pyke.- Claim tor breach of contract, and for,money advanced. Mr Barton appeared for plaintiff ; Mr Haggitt for defendant, who pleaded that he never contracted with plaintiff, as alleged, but .reunited w ia t an arrear of salary was due to the latter through a proper account not having been funnshed. Defendant also relied on the Statute 1 or i? raiuls, which requires that a contract nqt to be performed within a year must bo iu writ-ing.-—liobert Larriek, short-hand writer, plain<,iefelKliint in Wellington in Septembei, 1070, when he alluded to the disappointment he had experienced in not being appointed editor of the recently established Guardian’ newspaper. This led to defendant s saying that he intended starting a paper wnen he returned to Dunedin, and, on our arrival here, he told mo not to take any engagement until he had come back from a fortmgUt’s trip up-country. I met him at about tnat time, and he told me ho was going to start a paper in opposition to the ‘ Witness,’ but that it was to be kept a profound secret, as the Guardian was about starting a weekly, and that must be anticipated. He told me to find out and keep him well posted up as to the Guardian s project, as it was necessary to be m the held first. I did so, ami then he asked me to make up an estimate of the protable cost and revenue of the proposed paper, which I did showing that the former would be L3'J f»s (id pei week, the latter LGJ 6s 6d per week. On .November 20 defendant asked mo if X would take an interest in the paper, go on salary, or take an interest and go on salary as well, I hesitated, and he then said, “Ah. well, think over it, ami let me know in a day or two.” t en submitted the letter produced, to the effect that I would take a salary of L‘2so per annum—Lloo of this to be retained by defendant until I had paid in L4OO to the concern, when I was to be entitled to a quarter interest. 1 stated in the letter that I should be able to pay the L4OO within two years, On the 24th

I met defendant, and he said, “ Your letter is perfectly reasonable; I shall accept it, and will act upon it.” A day or two afterwards defendant and I started in separate directions upcountry to canvass for advertisements and subscribers. I spent L 24 5s during two trips. Ihe journal, the ‘Southern Mercury,’ was published on January 1,1874, but I had worked in getting it ready for some time before that. I ceased to work on it on May 26, and drew of my salary L 3 per week during the whole of that time, in terms of my letter which defendant had accepted. This left L2 per week f r twenty weeks, and L 25 for the live weeks before January 1, due to me -in all L 65, and L 24 5s for expenses. A week or so before defendant disappeared from the ‘ Mercury ’ office. 1 met him and Messrs Perrier, fitting, and others at Wain’s Hotel. Mr Perrier said, “So, Pykc I hear you’ve sold the ‘ Mercury ’ to the ‘Guardian,’ and that you aregoing on the latter as subeditor.” Defendant said : “it you have heard• that, you know more than I know.”. On May 26 defendant did not show up at the office, and I went in search of him. In a day or two I “spotted” him near Wain’s Hotel, and he said, “Oh, Garrick, I have transferred the paper to the ‘Guardian.’ You’ll publish it this week as usual. I’ll make the best arrangements for your interests I can. In the meantime you go on the reporting staff of the ‘Guardian.’ See Mr Creighton, the editor, and arrange with him.” He then walked off, and I had no opportunity of getting an explanation. Next day I found him and some of the ‘ Guardian ’ employes removing the things from the office. He asked me if I had seen Mr Creighton, and on my saying I had not, replied, “You had better see him,” and escaped as usual. Defendant has a very good way of evading any interview that he does not wish to prolong ; I have had six months’ experience of him, and know him well. I saw Mr Creighton, and he put me on the staff, at a salary of L 5 per week. In the course of ten days I managed to see defendant again, and asked him what about the * Mercury ’ affair, to which he replied, “ I’m busy just now, but we won’t quarrel about that.” The next time, he asked me what I claimed. I said matters had taken a turn I had not anticipated, so I was not prepared to say. He then asked what was due to me under the wages account and the money I had advanced, and said I had better make out a statement, and then we could arrange the matter. I did so at once, and gave it him. I made repeated applications for a settlement, but was put off week after week—defendant always saying that be was writing leaders or his “ Echoes from a Tub.” At last I became rather “ tenacious,” and spoke strongly to defendant about getting a settlement. In a few days I received a letter (produced) discharging me, in complimentary terms, from the ‘ Guardian. I could still get no satisfaction from defendant, and so put the matter in mv solicitor’s hands, who wrote to defendant*. He answered that he believed something was due for wages, etc., but denied the existence of any partnership contract. I have furnished defendant with forty or fifty copies of my account. I value a fourth share of the ‘ Mercury ’ at the time it was handed over at LSOO-—the circulation being 1,500 per week, and increasing rapidly, I should have been able to pay up the L4OO by September, instead of waiting the two years. Cross-examined: I made a special arrangement with defendant, after the first trip to establish the paper, that I should not do any canvassing or collecting. I did the sub-editorial work, and also kept the books. I did not enter in the books the money I received, but defendant got a receipt from me for each amount He kept the case book himself, and all moneys received during the day were handed over to hint at night. I never took pny of his moneys and applied them to my own uses. Smith, the canvasser, while on a trip, drew orders on me for moneys due to him by the office, and I used to pay them with the money received at the office. Defendant used to object to my doing this, but never found fault with me for applying his money to my own uses, and if Air Dnimm swears that defendant once did in his presence I shall certainly contradict him. The receipt for LlO produced, though signed by me “ for travelling expenses,” really is for part of ray salary—l gave defendant credit for the DIO in my statement. I used to sign the receipts for the L 3 per week as ou account of salary. I received from defendant L6O in all. I I was on the ‘Guardian’ for about three months, and during that time I asked him continually what he was going to do with me about the old 4 Alercury ’ arrangement. I expected to get something for my share of the paper, or else that he would make an arrangement for me like he had for himself—he sold the paper and got himself a three years’ billet at L6SQ a-year. I never asked defendant to put in writing his consent to my proposal, as he accepted it, and I thought that as the latter was acted on it would hold good. I have not been much at law, but have defended a oase in Court and so has defendant. I have never had a case C°» rt that I did not win, but defendant has. When at Invercargill once a drunken man was using bad language, and the police made me appear as a witness against him, At the conclusion of tue plaintiff’s case, Mr Haggitt moved for a nonsuit on the ground that the agreement should, under the Statute of brands, have been in wilting; and the point was being argued when our reporter left the Court at four o’clock.