DISTRICT COURT.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1563, 21 February 1879, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

Thursday, February 20. [Before His Honor Mr Justice Ward.] The sitting of the District Court opened at 11 am, EOBINSON V EOBINSON BEOS. Mr Joynt for the plaintiff, Mr O’Reilly for the defendant. The plaintiff in this case desired to recover a sum of money, £BS 19s Gd, as balance of wages due and owing from the defendants to the plaintiff as carter from Januarv 15th, 1877, to November Bth, 1878, at £IOO per year. Practically the claim was admitted, but there was an alleged set-off in the shape of goods, rent of cottage, &c., which formed the ground of dispute between the parties. The plaintiff, examined by Mr Joynt, deposed to certain sums of money being paid by him into the hands of defendant, and also to the amount claimed being due to him. In cross-examination the witness deposed that he never had a contra account rendered to him. It was not understood that the occupation of a cottage should form part of the wages. Hewastoget£looayear. Heresidedin his father’s house at Addington, aud finding the house empty he had taken possession of it. His father had died just after his going into the house. It was never understood that the plaintiff had to pay £25 a year to defendant for the house. He had paid no rent and was still in occupation. The defendant did not let plaintiff the house in February. Re-examined by Mr Joynt—Witness’s father was living at Dunsandel at the time he took possession of tlie house at Addington. He did not inform anyone that he had taken possession. No demand was made upon plaintiff for rent before leaving his brother’s employ. This closed the plaintiff’s case. Mr O’Reilly opened the defendant’s case, and called the defendant, who deposed that defendant was in his employ as driver of a van round the country. [The defendant then proceeded to give a number of items of claims on the set-off from his books.] Ho was acting as agent for his father in dealing with the house occupied by the plaintiff. There was no writing appointing him. After some further evidence, Mr O’Reilly abandoned the set-off for rent, amounting to £45 2s Bd. Cross examined by Mr Joynt—Plaintiff’s wages was to be £IOO a year, £25 being deducted for rent. Two weeks’ wages were deducted for the absence of the plaintiff, who was away that time on account of the death of the child. There was no entry of the deduction for the time thus lost in the day book. All debits against customers were made in the day book.

James Denham deposed to being a clerk and book keeper to defendants’ at Dunsanded, and entered their service pn February 11th, 1878, [The witness gave evidnice as to a number of items in the set-off claimed by defendant.] Cross-examined by Mr Joynt —Witness did not remember receiving a cheque from the defendant to keep for plaintiff. Mr O’Reilly submitted that there was no evidence of this cheque having been given at all. The cheque itself could be produced. His Honor was of opinion that a prim a fade case bad been made out by the plaintiff that the cheque hud been paid. After the plaintiff had been re-examined at some length as to the items of the set-off, The learned counsel on both sides having addressed the Court, His Honor gave judgment for plaintiff for £66 16a 4d and costs. HOT-MEISTKII’S TRUSTEES V MARKS. On the application of Mr Joynt, solicitor for the defendant, this case was adjourned, Hofmeister, who was a material witness for the defence, being unable to be found, Mr Harper, for the plaintiff, consented to the adjournment. Case adjourned till next sitting. VINCENT AND CO. V DE COSTA. Mr Izard announced that this case had been settled, and, therefore, the record was withdrawn. . PETITION OP MARIA RENJAMIN. Mr George Harper said ho wished to withdraw (his appeal. Mr Joynt applied for costs. His Honor said that Mr Joynt was certainly entitled to costs. Order—Appeal withdrawn with costs. MASON, BTRUTIIKKS, AND CO. V WALLER. Mr George Harper said that in this case lie would consent, to an adjournment, as asked for, if Dio costs of the day were paid. The case stood over on t hose condhionr. KLAUB v GKA lIA U. This we.s a claim for £162 6s, wages alleged to be due and payable to plaintiff’s wife by the defendant, extending over a period of four years, at £4O per annum. Mr Izard appeared for the defendant. The defence was that the plaintiff’s wife was, to the knowledge* of (tie plaintiff, living in adultery with the defendant, and that therefore she was in reality living with him as his wife, and not as his servant, tinder these circumstances the defence urged

that no acticn for recovery of wages would lie. ■ \ . . Wilhelmina Klaus, wife of LTio plandiff,, deposed to living with the defendant us housekeeper for eleven years. In February, 1873, the defendant paid her £2OO on account of wages due !o her to that date. Defendant left on the 10th March, 1877, for Germany, and returned October 15th, 1873. Defendant promised to pay her wages, all the time, but ashed her to wait, ns ho had not got fho money. Witness toid the defendant aim would not stop for £3O per annum, and he said that she should have what wm fair. This was when they settled up in 1873. She acted as manager of the whole farm while defendant was in Germany, and received all money. Witness desired him several times after his return to have a settlement, .but he said there was plenty of time. One Sunday morning in \ ivember, 1 he defendant came up to witness's house, but as he was intoxicated she refused him admittance. On the Monday following she gave all the books, &e. Witness paid all money that she could spare out of what she received to Mr Peryman, who was Grabnu’s trustee. Witness deducted her wages at CIO per year from the money which came into her hands. Defendant did not object to the deduction made by witness. Up to the present defendant bad paid nothing of the wages due for four years. Gross-examined by Mr Izard —Grabau was not married at the time witness was with him as housekeeper. She did not live with her husband, and when she quarrelled with her husband she went to Mr Grabau’s because she had nowhere else to go to. She might have lived with Grabau as her husband. During defendant’s absence the management of witness produced a good profit. There was no agreement between defendant and witness as to wages. The amount of £2OO was exactly for the number of years due at £4O per year. Mr Peryman and some other witnesses, including the defendant, wore examined. Counsel having addressed the Court, His Honor gave judgment for defendant, without costs. The Court then adjourned.