RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4092, 7 April 1876, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Wednesday, April 7. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.)

Parslow v. Worsp.—ln this case his Worship delivered judgment in effect as follows: —Plaintiff was a fireman on board the s.s. Phoebe, and sued the defendant, formerly master of the said vessel, for Ll2, one month’s wages claimed for wrongful dismissal. It had been contended that defendant could not be held liable, inasmuch as he had left the N.Z.S.S. Co.’s service at the time the summons was served ; but unless it was proved that it was part of the contract that plaintiff was to look only to the manager of the company, or the company itself, as responsible for his wages and not to defendant, then defendant could not be relieved of his responsibility as master. _lt would be contrary to the generous spirit of modem legislation, found necessary for the protection of seamen, to permit obstacles to be thrown in the way of a seaman suing a master for the recovery of wages. As to the alleged wrongful dismissal, the terms of the engagement stated that the wages were Ll2 per calendar month “for six months, to any port in New Zealand, port and time of discharge to be at the master’s option.” A monthly hiring is thereby implied, and .his Worship held that defendant could insist on six‘months’ service by the plaintiffj and had the right to determine the engagement at the end of any month, but not at any moment. In assessing the damages it must be remembered that defendant dismissed plaintiff, not because he did not require his services, but because the plaintiff would not agree to a reduction of wages to LlO a month, although there was a binding agreement for Ll2 a month, whatever wages might have risen to in the meantime. Judgment would be given for plaintiff for Ll2, with costs.— Mr Stout, for the defendant, asked leave to appeal, as there were other similar actions (involving the sum of LB4) against the company.—Mr G. B. Barton (plaintiffs counsel) contended that the case was brought under the Merchant Shipping Act of 1864, and that no appeal could be allowed.—Mr Stout said it was simply a Resident Magistrate’s Court case, and as there was a large principle involved he would like to test his Worship's decision by an appeal to the Supreme Court, especially as judgment had been given against a person who had left the service of the company, and not against the company itself.—TTin Worship said the proceedings of the comoany or its servant in this case was one that could not be defended, and as plaintiffs in this and the other cases were firemen or seamen, he would not grant leave to appeal.— Mr Stout said it was an unheard of thing that leave of appeal should be refused by a Magistrate in a case where a sum of LB4 whs involved, and his Worship had often granted leave in cases were there was only a question of a few shillings. i - His Worship said everything depended on the nature of the case, and positively refused counsel’s request.—Mr Barton asked for plaintiff’s expenses during the time the case had been going on.—His Worship said he had taken that into consideration in giving judgment for the full amount claimed, and. declined to award anything more than ordinary costs. The same judgment applies to the other cases.

M'Cullooh, as trustee in the estate of D. P. Stohr v. Stamper.—Claim Lls, money paid by bankrupt to defendant, his solicitor. Mr Nation appeared for plaintiff; Mr E. Cook defended.—Plaintiff stated -that after he was appointed trustee in the estate a meeting was held at his office in consequence of bankrupt having handed over to him only LlO5 instead of Ll2O, the latter amount being set down as assets in bankrupt’s statement of affairs. Stohr said defendant had demanded the sum of Lls from him before proceeding further with the conduct of his bankruptcy affairs. Defendant was present at the meeting, but said nothing about the Lls. Witness afterwards wrote to defendant, asking for the money, but had never received it.— Defendant, after a good deal of hesitation, admitted remembering that he had attended the meeting at plaintiff’s office, but could not swear to anything that Stohr; said. As far as ho could remember, Stohr said ho had.

paid part of the money to witness. Witness had received Ll3 from Stohr for the expenses of the bankruptcy proceedings, for work already done. [Left sitting.]