HOKITIKA WARDEN’S COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 22 September 1921, Page 1

HOKITIKA WARDEN’S COURT

WEDNESDAY. SKPT. ;>]. (Before AA’ardon Meldrum). AFTERNOON SITTIN^i. J. M. Allan and party (Mr Sellers) for sawmill license and two reservations, at Ferguson's. - Granted, subject to an agreement with objectors (Messrs Ferguson ami Klcock) being filed.

A DISPUTED PAYMENT. Joseph Hutchison (Mr AA’elis), v. Knniori -Sawmill Coy. Ltd. (Mr Mur. docli), a claim for CIO for balance of wages due. Joseph Hutchison gave evidence that he worked as winehmau for tlie Kan-ii-ri Sawmill Coy. Ltd., in Juno, his wages being Lit) 13s Id. He was pa’fl £<) IMs Id. leaving a balance of £lB which he claimed for. To Mr Murdoch. Ho had got a draw of 10s oil one occasion and 20s on j another in the last two years from Mr I Stuart. He denied having visited Air Smart’s lemso on March 12th and lin-A I ill" asked for and received a cheque fo-r £|o on account of his wages. Hototally denied having received Hie cheque and had told Mr Stuart so when £lO was deducted from his wages early in July. He had been employed as winehmau and knew that lie was working on -vKat was known as Diedriehs freehold: for tho white 1 hie mill. This was the ease for the plaintifl. Ml- Murdoch raised the js-int that ! the plaintiff's miner's right had not been put in. as was necessary’ in a Warden's Court ease. Mr AA ells t ook exception as to the point, stating Mr AI urdoeli had previously agreed t» i waive any objection as to procedure. Air Miii-do-h denied having mentioned anything in flint respect as regards a miner's rTght. After discussion it was agreed that Air AYells put- in a’ nie.er's right and the point' would he waived. Air Murdoch then led. evidence as follows : | David Stuart deposed Tie was mnr.niz:ing director of the Knniori .-v-w-nill for Ftd. The plaintiff had gut a draw I mi l'i' wages -ni three occasions. Tt was a common --••iirivm e for '< ho min employed at the mill to come Di him I for a draw. On 12th Alareh IP2I aliouf 7 p.m.. plaintiff, whom wilness flail known for sc-’eral years, and had

been in tlieir employ for two or three years, had conn- to his house and knocked. His son opened the door and came and told witness he was wanted, lie went to the door and plaintiff asked for a draw for £lO. Took him into the room and wrote out a cheque; for £lO and gave it to plaintiff. To July lie told Grant, tile Secretary to deduct I lie amount and Ibis was done. lie had not done so In-fore, having an i - looked (he payment till eheeking his bank book. Then 11 iitehi«--n hod r.mierl getting the cheque. Had fade everv endeavour In find out- who lad cashed the cheque, which was in open one. It had been cashed over the counter of the Bank of New Font'll Wales, but lo -hem was not known. To Air AYells lie had made every endeavour lo find who cashed tie - he-

quo to satisfy himself as to who received the payment, not for the purpose of satisfying himself as to - hem lie gave the i heqtte to. as lie ha-1 no doubt of I hat w hatever. Frank Fliiart. the Id-year old sou of tin- previous witness -rave evidence of Inning seen Hutchison, whom b-- kne-.v wcl I linin' to Ids father's house twice -in, e 'Ninas and on one occasion while his mother was away in AA'ellington tin Alareh). James Grant deposed he was secretary to the Kanieri Sawmill Coy Ltd. Mr Stuart, early in July 1--1-1 him that lie bad paid I Dili bison Lid in March and to ilednet it from his wages. When h,. did so. Hutchison said lie never got il. Stuart was called in and Hutchison repeated that lie d*id not g"t a i cheque from Stuart and Stuart was equally positive Hun lie had. Stuart bail previously told witness Hint the advance was made about the tune llie plaint ill’s wife was in a nursing home. ' and that he could recall the m blent quite well. ■p,. Hi,, l-eneh. When Hutchison denied .-citing the cheque, he did not do so in a convincing manner iti the oeinioN of wit ness. To Air Wells."-They made the ro-pe:-;ed enquiries around the -.own to find who had paid H'e ehoqne in because they wanted to clear up the mvstiry as to who hail received the cheque from Hutchison. He did not

See anything strange in that. Tie thought it was a very material procedure to endeavour to find through whoso hands the cheque had passed before il reached I lie hank. This concluded thu evidence. His Worship in giving judgment said the etvse was an exceedingly difficult The claim was for LIB. Tt was plain it had not been paid to the plr.int in' in tile usual way. through the Company's cashier. The defence was t fiat plaint ill’ bad received a draw of ('ll). There was a conflict of evidence as to whether it was received nv tinplaint ill' or not II was a ease of rath against oath. 11-- must say that he leaned to the evidence for the defence. Slaart was in the habit ->5 making advances lo the labor men in his em-

ploy. a very reasonable course for an ' lever In follow. Every effort hf.it been made by Stuart to trace who presented the cheque. There was Seine mystery. There was no doubt the e! eoiin ha-1 been paid. He was confirmed >n his opinion tliat ; payment had boon made hy Grant’s evidence, who staled he was not satisfied by flu- manner of tlie plaintiff's denial. His opinion was confirmed that the cvi- ! donee for (lie defence was to h ( - areppt- : ed. Tie would give judgment for the defendants, allowing court costs Hs and ' efmnseVs fee £2 2a,