MACISTRATE'S C0URT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2021, 5 March 1907, Page 2

MACISTRATE'S COURT.

A LOTTERY TICKET CASE. (Before Mr Barton, S.M.) At tho Police Court yestorday morn ing, beforo Mr. Burton, S.M., Francis McCabe was charged with stoaling a letter containing a cheque for £l4 ■Jl'is Gd, tlio property of C. M. C. Alc--Cabo. Mr. Stock appeared for accused. Mr. Coleman asked to appear on behalf of Charles Smith to prevent h s giving incriminating evidence. Ho could not show any precedent, and tho magistrate said ho would con;sidor the question. , Charles McCabo, liconseo of tlio Wnerongaokuri Hotel, admitted having four tickets on a sweep in Tasmania, The money was remitted through Charles Smith, of Gisborno. Ho received the results and tickets (results aiul tickets produced). He gavo tlio other two tickets to Mr. Charles Smith to send to Tasmania. Tlio list produced sho rod that he bad drawn prizes of £5 on ticket man bored 77197, and £lO on ticket nujbered 77199. He did not receive a cheque produced by tlio pu’i.-c. By Mr. Stock: It was not 1 lie fi: st time ho had invested in swoops. Charles Smith, hairdresser, was called, and Detective Maddern proceeded to examine him, but Mr. Coleman objected on behalf of his client as he might be incriminated. Tlio magistrate decided to adjourn for an hour to consider tho question. When the Court resumed His Worship decided that witness would have to answer any questions, and that if lie answered them faithfully he would issue a certificate freeing him from prosecution under the Gaming and Lotteries Act. ITis evidence was then taken. He said he received two winning tickets from Mr. McCabe, of Waer-onga-o-kuri to send to Hobart. A letter came back addressed to Mr. McCabo, care of witness. The letter was put' in the rack. He saw accused v-itli the letter and told him it did not belong to him. Accused said be bad cashed the cheque and witness told him he had better get it back. He asked if there were initials on the cheque or the letter. Ho replied Yes, that they bore the initial “F.” Witness went with accused to Mr. Oman, who cashed the cheque, and asked him to show the cheque, and lie did so. There was no initial. He asked accused to show the envelope, but lie stated that it was lost. AVitness saw accused several times since and advised him to give the money back, but ho refused, saying that he thought it belonged to him . By Mr. Stock: Accused had occasionally got tickets through witness, and the same procedure took place. ’! he envelope was marked Hobart, but there was nothing to sliow that it came from Tattersall’s, neither was there anything on the face of the bnnkdraft (produced) to show that it belonged to accused. He was unaware if acusod had promised to refund tlie money should it be shown that it belonged to another. F. Melville, fellmonger, said he met accused in the street some time in January. He saw a letter in Mr. C. Smith’s rack addressed “Mr. McCabe,” and told him there was a letter inside for him and showed it to him. Ho opened it and took out a cheque or bank draft. AVitness said to accused that ho did not think it belonged te him; he made no reply. Mr .and Airs. George Smith were in the shop and ho asked them in tho bearing of accused if there was anyone else named McCabe in Gisborno. One of them said “No.”

By Air. Stock: Accused had said a few weeks belore that lie expected a reply from Tattersalls. The only reason ho had for thinking it was not for accused was that he would have told witness if he had won a prizo. He had not spoken with accused for about a fortnight before. Mrs. Harriot Smith, wife of George Smith, said she saw the last witness and accused in her husband’s shop. They called for a letter in the rack. Accused opened it and drew out a cheque or bank draft. Smith asked accused if lie had tlio winning number to be sent away. Ho said no, but ho thought Smith had got tho number without his knowledge, and sent away for it. Alclville had tho cheque in his hand. AVitness just asked to seo it when accused took it and loft tlio shop.

By Air. Stock: Accused thought the cheque was for him when he took

(j. B. Oman said lie remembered cashing the draft produced at accused’s request about the first week in January. Accused said it' belonged to him. Mr Stock contended that there was no proof whatever that the cheque belonged to E. M. C. McCabe, that there was no proof that accused stole it, and before ho could be convicted the conclusion must bo arrived at that accused took the cheque. The evidence was all the other way. If it could be shown that the money did not belong to accused McCabe, it would be willingly refunded. The magistrate decided that the police had not made out a prima facie case and accused was discharged. DISPUTED CLAIM. When the court resumed at 2 p.m. the following civil case was dealt with, Aubrey Houston v. Messrs Common, Shelton and Co., for alleged wrongful dismissal, and a claim for £l3 18s, balance of wages. Mr Blair apeared for plaintiff, and Mr Stock for defendant.

Aubrey Houston said that ho was engaged by defendant Company early in January at a salary of £2 10s per week, and commenced work on the 28th January. He worked four days, and was paid £1 9s on Ist February for the four days. Witness questioned the figures. Mr Paslcy replied that he worked it on an annual basis. Witness made it £1 13s 4d. His engagement was by the week. On 2nd February he gave the Company a week’s notice, because lie could not reconcile the payment of £1 9s with £1 13s -kl, and he asked him to make a definite statement as to what he would be paid monthly. He received the reply £ll per month. He asked for weekly payment, but this was refused. Witness asked him about his prospects, and was told that he would get £3 10s per week after two' months, doing the shipping clerk’s position. Witness was not satisfied, and gave a week’s notice on 2nd February. Mr Pasley could not see his way to take it as he would requiro a clear month’s notice. When the week expired witness asked again, and was told that he could go, but would forfeit his money. Ho could not do that, as this might cost him a position. Later Oil when the Company got another

man tlioy offered to let him go, but lie said that it was too late, and ho would stay on at the monthly rate. After some consideration this was agreed to. Tho now clerk arrived on 13tli February and witness again saw Mr Pasley, who said that as ho had another clerk lie (witness) could go. This was too late, as lie could not get the position in AVclington, and asked for a clear month’s notice or payment up to end of March in lieu of notice. He was told to stay on and work till the end of March, which was agreed to. This arrangement obtained till 23rd February, when witness had a touch of malaria. A boy was sent to inquire tho reason of witness’ absence, but did not say anything about his being specially wanted. AVitness went to work shortly after 2 p.m. Mr Pasley came in, on tho Saturday afternoon following, and asked him to sign a receipt for £8 Os 4d, and he was told that it was his salary to date. AA'lien ho asked the reason he was told that he (Mr Pasley) could not see his way to keep him on any longer, as he had left them in the lurch on Thursday, and afterwards added that he had reorganised the staff, and that lie’ had better go. AVitness asked for tho balance due to him, and was refused, and told that lie could do as ho ploased about it. AVitness was ready and willing to continue to tho end of March.

By Mr Stock: Ho did not expect to bo paid by the day. Mr Pasley told him that when he could get another clerk to take his place ho could go. He did not toll witness that he was only staying on sufferance, but that ho- expected to got good work out of him beforo leaving, and ho worked to the best of his ability. He was told that the special work was to bo completed by tho Saturday morning. Mr O’Meara did not toll him it was required by the AVednesday evening. It was not by his neglect that the steamer Kumara had to leave without bills of loading. He was aware that Mr Pasley, Mr O’Meara, and another clerk were working till 3 a.m. on the Saturday morning, but not through his neglect. Ho denied telling the messenger that he did not think it nocessary to go down for a few hours only. His special work was dono by midday on Friday and wore untouched on Mr. Pasley’s desk till five p.m. He wont to work about two p.m. Mr. Puflett could not see if he were working. Ho did not see Mr. O’Meara that afternoon. He worked from nine to one and two to five on Saturday. He was back at 2.15 p.m. Mr. Pasley saw him smoking at 2.10 p.m. ITe had two or three advances against his salary. AVhen being paid Mr. Pasley did not tell him he was dissatisfied with him, but ho said that he did not do the important work. He told Mr. Pasley that he had done the work, and left it on Mr. Pasley’s table. lan Dunlop, a junior, employed by defendant, said that he took a message to plaintiff on Thursday, February 21. He was told that phi intiff was rather feverish, and that ho would not be missed for a few hours. For the defence Mr. Stock said it would he shown that there was ,-nothing said about a week’s notice —he was there on sufferance. ’ G. K. Pasley, secretary for Common, Shelton, and Co., said that ho told plaintiff a month’s notice on either side was necessary, that the company had an agreement which each member of the staff had to sign and plaintiff would be expected to sign it in a few days. Salaries are paid every month, and when he paid £1 9s to plaintiff he was told that his salary would be paid £l3O per annum, but the previous clerk was paid £132, and for convenience lie would get the same. The £1 9s was paid on that basis. Houston complained at being paid 4s 4d short. AVitness sin toil lie bad been used to weekly payment, and expected the same. Oil the following Saturday plaintiff asked about his position, saying that lie was worth more than £2 10s a week. He gave notice, having a better position in AA T elliugton, and asked to leave at the end of the week. A week’s notice was declined, as a month’s was required on either side. He said he had not signed the agreement, and further said that unless ho got away ho might lose his position. AVitness said that if he could get another clerk plaintiff could go. AA’itness succeeded in ton days’ time, and got Mr. Puflett. Ho then called plaintiff and offered liim salary to date, and suggested that he leave by steamer that evening. Plaintiff said lie had had no reply to his telegram, and was not certain if the position was still available, and that if witness made him a good offer lie would stay. That was out of the question, as lie bad- been put to the trouble of getting another clerk. Plaintiff then demanded a month’s notice. AA T itiicss offered to let liim stay till he could get another position if lie did his work well. Plaintiff said that lie was merely here on sufferance, and witness said that was liis position. He did not do his work properly after that. He saw plaintiff smoking about 1.30 on the Thursday afternoon, and at 2.25 lio was in the office. It was most important that the wool specifications should be completed, and. Mr. Houston knew this. AVhen lie was paying plaintiff lie said lie had nothing to do. He said he might require a month’s notice when plaintiff said he had local offers, but he did not intend to enforce this.

E. H. O’Meara, shipping clerk, said that his vprk depended 'oi| plaintiff. He requested Houston to get on with the specifications, sayin.:-; that they were wanted on the Wednesday evening if possible. Less than a quarter of the work was done by the evening, but he had boon doing a little other work through the day and they were not ready by the following morning. On the Friday he complained about, the specifications not being done, and was told lie did them as fast as bo could.

G. H. Puflott, a recent employee of the defendant company, said that plaintiff came in on Thursday afternoon, but did not know if lie was doing any work, and remained there half an hour.

Mr. Stock urged that an absolutely new arrangement was made on 9tli February ,and defendant could dismiss him at a moment’s notice, especially after his contradictory evidence. Mr. Blair maintained that a week’s notice having been declined, the original arangement must be presumed to have continued. It was unreasonable to suppose that plaintiff would be unwise enough to stay there on sufferance. The facts did not 1 justiiy dismissal. The magistrate reserved decision until this morning.