Feilding Stipendiary Court

Feilding Star, Volume XV, Issue 18, 21 July 1893, Page 2

Feilding Stipendiary Court

(Before Mr. Bjrftbant, S.M.) The following case was heard by Mr Brabant, S.M., after we went to press yesterday afternoon. John Thomas and Frederick Duxfield v. Edward Gladstone, claim £59 due on a bushfelling contract on the Waitotara river* Mr Richmond for the plaintiffs, Mr Reade for the defendant. J. T. Duufield deposed, that in j March 1891, the defendant arranged for plaintiffs to go and interview a Mr Hirst, at Palmerston, respecting some bushfelling on the Waitotara river for which Mr Hirst offered 24fe an acre. Witness said that the price was too low, and declined the job. Subsequently plaintiffs arranged to take the work at Is an hour, and knocked off on the 11th of December, 1891, after finishing the job. Witness had made several attempts to come across Gladstone hut never succeeded in finding him at home. Ultimately when witness met him Gladstone said there was £53 to draw, and he (defendant) had to take his share. £25 4s was afterwards received from Gladstone of which £7 was due to a man named Kinloch. In course of cross examination, counsel for the defence put in a letter from witness to the defendant, in which witness asked for a further payment of £10, as the writer considered Gladstone had not allowed the plaintiffs a fair sum. By the Bench. — The arrangement from the commencement was not clearly defined, but witness thought the work was to be taken on shares. In the second agreement witness understood that he was not responsible for any losses incurred. Each mnn was to be paid wages, to pay Gladstone 15s per week for Board, and each man was to pay his own expenses. They were to receive a share in the profits but not to bear any of the loss incurred. Frederick Duxfield deposed, that during the time he and his brother were working on the contract, Gladstone did very little work, except during the last two or three month?. Gladstone received £562 10s from Mr Hirst for falling 450 acres of busk at 25s an acre. Cross-examined.— Plaintiffs were on shares with Gladstone in the contract. At the time of settlement in Gladstone's house, witness never raised any objection when defendant .paid his brother the cheque for 4-25 4sl Frank Thompson whs also examined for the plaintiffs. Mr Reade argued that the plaintiffs were outside the jurisdiction of this Court as the claim was too high for this Court to deal with. Further the agreement put in between the parties, proved that a partnership existed. Plaintiffs were also estopped by reason of the settlement which took place on the 9th of February. After hearing Mr Richmond in reply, his Worship ruled that a plaintiff cannot reduce his claim by admitting a set off, as decided by Justice Richmond, vide 19 and 20 Victoria, chapter 8. Again, in Woodham v. Newman where the debt had been reduced by a set off, it was held that no set off could be allowed, except by consent of both parties. Therefore unless the defendant agrees to a set off the plaintiffs cannot recover in this Court. In disputes as to wages, in his (Mr Brabant's) opinion, it is the duty of the Court to take advantage of the v " Equity and Good Conscience Clause " although Judge Broad does not appear to agree with this opinion. The case would be struck out for want of jurisdiction, and defendant must be allowed witnesses expenses 16s, costs of Court 6s, and counsel's fee £3 3s. This concluded the business, and the Court adiourned.