IMPORTANT WAGES DECISION.

Greymouth Evening Star, Volume XXXI, 12 June 1901, Page 4

IMPORTANT WAGES DECISION.

Judgement was given by the Chief Justice in the Supreme Court, Wellington, in the case of John Bentiok Blain, mining expert, v. John Craig MoKorrow, merchant.

His Honor said that five issues in this case had been left to the Court to decide, and in accordance with the decision of these issues accounts would if necessary be taken by the Registrar. There were two claims made by the plaintiff in dispute in the action. He said (1) that he was entitled to the sum of £6O for the surrender of a mining claim called the Mount Pleasant Extended, and (2) that his wages at £4 per week lasted up to end of January this year. The defendant said ho never agreed to give £6O for the surrender of the Mount Pleasant Extended claim, and that the wages at £4 per week, which began on the 6 th July. 1896, terminated in the end of April, 1898. Toe question was to whom the plaintiff or the defendant, credence was to be given. To answer that question the surroundings must be examined. The plaintiff had been in the defendant’s employment as a storeman at a wage of £2 10s per week. At that time the defendant was carrying on a land, estate etc. agency business in Wellington. In 1896, attention was directed to mining on the West Coast of the South Island ; and the plaintiff was engaged to go to the Coast to look for mining claims and to prospect. The defendant’s counsel stated that his client’s duties wore analogous to those of a ‘‘scout,’’ He was

to receive £4 a week as wages, but out of that amount he had to pay his own hotel expenses, eto. He obtained some claims for the plaintiff, and one of them was sold at a handsome profit. Ho had received his wages from time to time, and seem to have been paid monthly. On the 2nd December, ISC 6, a settlement of accounts was come to. The defendant entered in the time-book kept by the plaintiff the settlement of the accounts. A statement of the defendant’s was fully corroborated by the plaintiff’s own time-book, and this corroboration disposed of the statement made by the plaintiff that he was to get £6O for the surrender of the Mount Pleasant Extended claim. There was no corroboration of the plaintiff’s story about the £6O. It was never brought to his credit in any account, and it was not claimed in the first two statements of claim in this action. It was a most improbable story that the defendant should pay £6O to his employee for competing with him in the taking up of claims. His Honor believed the statement of the defendant and not that of the plaintiff. The other main question was, “Wasan arrangement made in the end of April, 1898, that the £4 a week wages was to cease, the plaintiff being paid board at the new mine at Ku'amoa, the board of his children being paid, and small sums given to him to meet smaller expenditure, he to refund these advances out of his anticipated profits'?’’ That was the defendant’s story. Tno Plaintiff denied it and said no difference was made in the arrangement that had been in existence since the 12th December. 1896. When it was considered that both plaintiff and the defendant be . lieved that the sluicing claim atKaramoa was bound to turn out a very profitable enterprise—it was thought to bo worth £250,000 —and that the plaintiff was to get 10 per cent, of the profits, it was more likely that he went in the mine on the terms mentioned by the defendant, looking for the profits that he as a prospector of the claim believed to be certain to bo realised. The letters of the defendant to the plaintiff seemed to bear out the defendant’s story. The probabilities were against the story of the plaintiff, and when his memory had been tested, as in the case of the settlement of the accounts, it had been found wanting. That a working man could leave his wages unpaid for two years and nine months, and treat himself as a wages man, whilst living in Wellington, his Honor did not understand. In his opinion this main queaton must also be answered adversely to the plaintiff. The issues were answered as follows 1. The plaintiff, in the ten per cent of profits, was to do hia best for the defendant. 2. The contract for wages expired in the end of April, 1/398 ; the ten per cent profits continued, 3 and 4. The plaintiff is not entitled to wages from the end of April, 1898. 5. The plaintiff is not entitled to £6O for the surrender of the Mount Pleasant Extended claim. The other moneys paid will be found when accounts are taken.

The question of costs was reserved till accounts were taken or the taking of ac counts were abandoned.