DISTRICT COURT.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1210, 14 June 1872, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

Wednesday, June 12. (Before His Honor Judge Harvey.) CLAIM FOR WAGES. William Lonargan, storeman, HalfOunce, v. Morris Levy, merchant, Greymouth. This was an action to recover LIBO, for wages, for services rendered as storeman at Granyille. Mr Staite appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Perkins for the defendant. The plaintiffs case was that when he assigned his estate at Half-Ounce, Messrs Masters and Levy were appointed trustees, and that Levy bought the estate at 6s 8d in the pound, put in a Mr Russell to look after his interest, and engaged the plaintiff at L 3 per week as storeman, i in order to facilitate the getting in of the debts in the old estate. The defendant had since furnished goods to the stores, and had exercised ownership over them by calling and' taking away money, and instructing the parties how to carry on the business, then ultimately winding it up, turning the plaintiff out, and refusing to pay him any wages. The defence was that the estate was absolutely sold to Mr Russell on an acceptance drawn by Mr Levy, accepted by Mr Russell, and endorsed by Mr Levy for L4OO, and that the business was carried on by him ; that Lonargan went in as a partner with Russell on half-profits, and that no wages were due to him, as he was never engaged as a Btoreman by the defendant. After the plaintiff's evidence had been given to the above effect, David Girdwood said that he was a creditor in Lonargan's estate, and accepted 6s 8d in the pound on the debt from Mr Levy. Levy paid the amount. He had several conversations with Levy as to .Lonargan's return to Half-Ounce. Levy told him that Lonargan and Russell were going up to manage the business for him, and that after tha estate repaid him what he had paid for it, he would give it back to Lonargan. The dividend was paid in account between him and Levy. He had since sold Russell goods, and been paid. Felix Stratford said that he lived at the junction of the Little Grey. He was storeman for Lonargan in March, 1871, when Lonargan made an assignment. Robert Russell came up after that and said he had come to take charge. He asked what Lonargan was going to do, and Russell replied that he was not aware, but if Lonargan came up he was to be on wages. Lonargan came up a few days afterwards. Cross-examined : The letter produced and signed " Wra. Lonargan," is in my handwriting. L4O was due me in wages, all of which I have lost, because Lonargan asked me to hold back the claim at the time and I lost it. Edward Masters said he was one of the trustees in the estate of Wm. Lonargan. The estate was sold. He received the dividend by cheque or bills, and he believed by Mr Levy. Russell subsequently took possession of the estate and announced it as being for himself. Cross-examined : I see this acceptance fo. 1 L4OO, drawn by Morris Levy, accepted by Robert Russell, dated 15tK March, 1871, which was given for the purchase of the estate. For the defence, Morris Levy said that on the 18th March, 1871, Lonargan called a meeting of creditors. He was then indebted to me over L4OO. I was his largest creditor. He owed me as much as all the other creditors. Before the meeting of creditors he said that Russell had agreed to join him in partnership, and if I would buy the estate they could make a good thing out of it. Russell is a friend of mine. Jn the first instance he did not care to have anything to do with Lonargan, but ultimately we that he should go in on half -profits, but have nothing to do with the business. I said at* time I would not trust Lonargan, but I had no objection to them going in partnership, but everything would be charged to Russell, as I would not have Lonargan's name in my books. They agreed to this.- The agreement was this— that 1 was to endorse Russell's bill for the purchase of the estate from the trustees, Russell and Lonargan to be partners, but Lonargan only to be partner in the profits, his name not to appear I did not bind Russell to take goods from me, but whenever my account was paid in full they could do just as they pleased. Mr Masters and I aold the estate as trustees to Mr Russell. The sale-note is produced. (An argument took place as to the admissibility of the agreement, -as it was not stamped. It was withdrawn by Mr Perkins.) The acceptance now shown me is for L4OO accepted by Russell. It was drawn by me and endorsed by me by the wish of the creditor's for Lonargan's estate. The bill -was deposited with Mr Perkins to be held as collateral security until Mr Russell paid the. L4OO, he being known to have no funds at the time. I paid the dividends in Lonargan's estate, and charged them to Russell's account in the ledger. After the sale Lonargan agreed to go up to Half-Ounce, and work the business with Russell on half-profits. I never had a conversation with the plaintiff engaging him at L 3 per week. I first heard of it when I received Lonargan's first letter. Until then he never made a demand on me or rendered any account. I did not answer the letter immediately, because I wanted to go up first and see for myself how matters were going on. I never hud any interest in the business, holding it in the name of Russell, except that I was anxious to get the purchase-money back. I never inspected their books. Lately, on my return from Reef ton, I went to their lower store at Granville, when Lonargan asked for his wages. I told him it would serve him right if I gave him in charge for obtaining money by false pretences, and used other forcible language. I did not order him to give up certain moneys to Russell. Lonargan is not my servant, as I never engaged him. His brother put in a claim for L2OO, and when Lonargan came down I snowed it to him, when he said he only owed his brother L2O, and crossed out one of the oughts out of the deed. Both businesses were Russell's absolutely, and Lonargan knew it. Charles Marks, manager for Mr Levy, said he was positive that Mr Levy had nothing whatever to do with Russell's business: Lonargan never told me that Levy had engaged him at L 3 per week, but he told me that ho had gone into i partnership with Russell on profits. If I there had been any agreement for wages it would have appeared in the books at stock-taking, and I would have known it, Lonargan told me that from the arrange.

ment he had made with Russell. he hoped to retrieve the past,, and after Levy % amount was paid off he he^would have his name in the business. . ■• 1 Robert Russell, storekeeper at HalfOunce, said : In March, 1871, I had a conversation with Lonargan regarding my starting business at Mabille-town. He asked me to join him, but I objected to partnership. He said he had a very good connection, but all he wanted was goods ; that LI 00 worth of goods woiild place him , in a good position, and if I would join him we would do well together. I said I was afraid from his position I might get into difficulty, but 1 would see how'he stood. I came to town to make inquiries, . and went to Levy. I remember Lonargan some days afterwards coming down to assign his estate. In Levy's store Lonargan told me he was in difficulties, and intended, or had assigned his estate. Levy told me I could have the estate for 6s 8d in the £, and I thought it would be a very good speculation. I asked Lonargan to come outside, when I told him if the estate was as he represented, we could make a good deal of money out of it I bought it. He told me it was agemiine affair, and on his representations I went in and closed the bargain with Mr. Levy, at 6s 8d in the pound. Levy and Masters offered to draw on me at a month, and I accepted the bill, and sent Levy down as much money as I could get in to meet the bill. After the purchase Lonargan wrote a letter up to his brother, which 1 was to carry, to the effect that he had to give up everything, books and cash to me; but 1 refused to take it, as I wished the true position of the parties explained. The letter was destroyed, and another written. Lonargan went, in with me as a partner on half-profits. Levy said to Lonargan at the time the sale-note was handed over, " When my account is paid I have rio objection to your name appearing in the business." Lonargan did not object. He came up a few days after, and assumed the same position as. l did. I have of ten brought him Up goods he wanted from town, and have paid for them with the partnership money. It was in March last that I heard Lonargan claim that Levy had employed him on wages, in course of conversation regarding winding up the business. I aaid it .was the first time I had heard of it ; I never told anyone that I knew he was on wages. Lonargan frequently absented himself from business without my permission; In the case. Russell v. Crogan, heard recently at the Ahaura. I did not swear that Lonargan, the plaintiff, was my storeman. This finished the evidence, and the Court adjourned until the following morning.

Thursday, June 13. The case Lonargan v. Levy was resumed, and Mr Perkins addressed the Court for the defendant, and Mr Staite for the plaintiff. His Honor said that the evidence given for the plaintiff was in direct opposition to that given by the defendant. Tho direct evidence given by the plaintiff was that he had purchased the estate bonajidc, and had no colorable transactions with Levy. After severely commenting upon several transactions which had occurred in Court in this case, his Honor gave judgment for the defendant with costs. APPEAL— JOYCE V. KENRIOK. The appeal case Joyce v. Kenrick was then called on, and proceeded for the remainder of the sitting. The following were the grounds of appeal : — 1. That the verdict^ was against the weight of evidence. 2. Tliat the Warden's Court at' Greymouth had no jurisdiction to try and determine the said suit. 3. That a copy of the transfer of the quarter-share referred to in the said suit, was improperly admitted in evidence by the said Warden. 4. That the plaintiff was not entitled to recover the amount sued for until the performances by him of the condition that he would sell and transfer to me a quarter-share in the Victoria claim as a sleeping share or interest in the said claim. 5. That the transfer alleged to have been made from the complainant to the defendant was not a transfer of a sleeping quarter-3hare in r the Victoria claim, and the said transfer was made without my consent. — This was an appeal from the decision of the Warden and assessors in a case that had been heard at the Warden's Court, Greymouth. Only a pare of the evidence was heard, and the full hearing of the case was adjourned until this morning at ten o'clock, when the Court will resume.