RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4283, 17 November 1876, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Friday, November 17.

(Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.)

Charlton and Boyd y. Roderick M'Lean. —Claim, Ll6 3s, for goods supplied.—As it appeared that an error had been made as to defendant’s name in the information, the case was adjourned to allow the necessary correction being made. Same v. David Carey, senior.—Claim, L 5 12s 3d, for furnishings, &c., supplied.— Judgment by default for the amount claimed with costs.

William Pickett v. George Keith.—Claim, 13s 9d, for goods supplied.—Judgment by default for the amount claimed with costa. George Charlton y. Henry King.—Claim, L 6 9s, for meat, bread, &c.—Judgment by default for the amount claimed with costs.

J. B. Bradshaw v. Dunedin, Peninsula, and Ocean Beach Railway.—His Worship gave judgment as follows “The plaintiff sues to recover L9O 19s Id for services rendered as secretary from March 23, 1875, to July 15, 1875. It appears that the plaintiff had been secretary up to March 23. In the minutes of the directors, April 14, the fol lowing resolution appears : ‘ The payment of Ll5O to Mr Bradshaw as interim secretary to the company, and for the use of his office up to March 23, as agreed on by the managing director, &c., approved,’ Mr Bradshaw, being desirous to be relieved on March 23, the secretaryship had been offered to a Mr Loring and declined. The plaintiff continued to discharge the duties in the meantime, and was formally re-appointed on April 14. He claims to be paid at this same rate for his services up to July 15, when Mr Asher was appointed, which had been fixed for his previous term. The defendants aver that when it was agreed that Mr Bradshaw was to receive Ll5O it was arranged that he was to give the use of his office, and to assist his successor with the correspondence with the Colonial and Provincial Governments if required. The minutes were silent in regard.to this arrangement, and as by law directors are required to 'cause minutes to be made in books provided for the purpose ’ of all ‘ resolutions and proceedings’ of ‘the directors and committees of the directors,’ I am of opinion I cannot vary, add to, or qualify the written minutes by anj verbal arrangement, Although I had power to do so, the alleged arrangement was too indefinite in its terms to be obligatory on the plaintiff for an indefinite period. There is no doubt had Mr Loring accepted the appointment that the plaintiff would have rendered him any assistance in his power ; but an offer of this kind on his part cannot be construed into an obligation to undertake the whole duties of the office gratuitously for the period sued for. I am accordingly of opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to payment for his services, and the question is at what rate. During the time mentioned there are four formal minutes of meetings, two of them on the same day. The correspondence and duties otherwise do not appear to have been heavy. Indeed the works were stopped altogether. But the company had a Bill before the Provincial Council which required the plaintiff’s attention, and he had various interviews with the Provincial Government. He also kept the books. It has been proved that the plaintiff’s successor was only paid at the rate of LSO a year. He was, however, a salaried clerk in the employment of the manning

director. The present secretary, it appears, 1 ifi paid at the same rate. lam of opinion i that the auloiint demanded by the plaintiff ! is in the whole circumstances too much, and I think that the sum of LBS is a fair and liberal allowance for his trouble and for the use of chambers. Judgment will be for the plaintiff for L 35 and costs.”—Mr C. Kettle applied for leave to appeal, but his Worship pointed out that no point of law j was at issue, and the application was not pressed. David Thompson v. Andrew Dixon and Co.—Claim, Lll 19s 6d. Mr Lewis appeared for plaintiff; Mr Bathgate for defendants. From the evidence it appeared that the plaintiff, a blacksmith, had been engaged by Dixon and Co. to proceed to Catliu’s Kiver and work for them, and-that he received LI to defray the expenses of his passage from Dunedin. After he had worked some little time he asked for money to enable him to fetch his family to Gatlin’s, and was thereupon told that his work was not satisfactorily done, and “he did not suit.” Thereupon plaintiff immediately “cleared out ” in a ‘vessel which was lying in the river, and now brought this action for wrongful dismissal and balance of wages. The plaintiff, in his cross-examination by Mr Bathgate, stated the inferior quality of his work was owing to the wretched tools supplied to him. He had been a tradesman thirty years, and indignantly denied that he was a loafer, or had ever received money from any one to pay hia passage Home. Some little amusement was caused by the plaintiff’s cavalier treatment of Mr Bathgate, whom he more than once advised to “stick to the case, and not introduce his (plaintiff s) private affairs.” For the defence it was alleged that plaintiff’s workmanship was unsatisfactory, and that he was not wrongfully discharged.— His Worship held that plaintiff was entitled to L 4 4s 3d, and gave judgment for that amount, with costs.

Wm. Davidson v. Robert Brown.— Claim, Ll3 6s Bd, for furnishings supplied.—Defendant stated he was not aware he owed so mnch.—Judgment for the amount nlnimpilj with costs.