DISTRICT COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LVI, Issue 6488, 13 December 1881, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

Monday, Deo. 12. (Before His Honor Judge Ward). OILBS T. BBI.Ii. Claim for balance of building contract, £93 7s. Mr Stringer for plaintiff. Mr Harper, for defendant, applied for an adjournment. Mr Stringer consented on the costs of the day being paid. The cose was accordingly adjourned till next sitting of the Court. H'GBATH T. M'GBATH. Claim for balance of wages, £2OO. Mr Stringer appeared for plaintiff, Maurice M'Qrath, and Mr Gresson appeared for defendant, Peter M'Qrath. The litigants are brothers. Mr Stringer, in opening the case, said that plaintiff had originally been engaged as tiueieeper by his brother, a contractor for the Woipara Bailway. After working in this post for about a fortnight bo was also made orerseer. As timekeeper he was to hare 80s a week and his board; as overseer his salary was not stated, but defendant said he should have what was fair. He now claimed for 76 weeks at 80s, and at £4—the latter being a fair salary for an overseer. Tfre following evidence for plaintiff was lad : Maurice M'Qrath, the plaintiff, deposed that he bad acted as overseer for 76 weeks, from April, 1879. This had occupied the whole of his time during the day. In the evening he did the work of time-keeper, and kept the books. He was the responsible man, and was treated as such by the Government engineer. The number of men on the con* tract varied from 60 to 80; at least three* fourths of whom were under his personal supervision during the whole time. He had an assistant superintendent, who received £4 a week and his board. He had drawn certain sums from time to time, and these were cor* rectly debited to him by the defendant. Cross-examined by Mr Bresson: I arrived here about April 1,1879. I was immediately taken on as time-keeper by my brother. 1 am thirty-one years of age. I was farming at Home, and my brother wrote for me to come out to New Zealand. I was superintending two farms for my father—2so acres. I had dealt in cattle also. I had .no previous experience in time-keeping, but had a very good education at Home. My brother’s promises prevented me from accepting any other situation. Sir Hercules Bobinson said he would use his influence in obtaining a situation for me. Complaints were made about me by the Government Engineer. They were about my over zeal in my brother’s cause. My brother praised me and took my part against the Engineer. I tendered him my resignation on two occasions, and he refused to accept it. My brother may have pointed out other work to me besides time-keeping and I was glad to do it for him. I picked up as much as 1 could from the Inspector, Mr Dunn. My brother could not teach me because he did not know himself, how to measure quantities. After leaving .my brother, I went to Mr Johnson, who was to pay me £7O for a Job. My brother helped me to get the job. ! afterwards went on my brother’s farm at 80s a week. After I had taken a month’s holiday he reduced my wages to 20s. I have earned no wages since I left him, but have been looking after speculations. There were no other time-keepers. The head of each gong obliged me by giving mo the time. I had to keep all the accounts. On Saturday it, was twelve o’clock before I got to bed. On other nights it took me three or four hours to write up the books. I kept the time-sheets, the ledger, and (he pay-sneets. My brother told me I was (he orerseer.

William Quealy, Clerk to the Little Hirer Hoad Board, bad worked on the same contract aa the plaintiff. Witness corroborated plain* tiff’s evidence { but could not say what the value of his services were. Another man, Mr Cone, received £4 a week. Defendant never complained of plaintiff till the latter applied for this money. Cross-examined ; I came out with plaintiff. lam his first cousin. I did not try to get other work. I was not offered a billet by Sir Hercules Bobinson. 1 should say there were 40 or 50 men on the work. Plaintiff, I understood, represented the contractor. I may have lent a hand to plaintiff with the books sometimes. Charles O’Malley, contractor, who had had a sub-contract on the Wairarapa railway, gave further corroborative evidence. He considered £4 a week a fair salary for the work plaintiff did. He had known more to be paid and had known loss to bo paid. Cross-examined : I have had groat experience in plate-laying. It takes some time to learn, and is paid for with more than ordinary wages. The witness thought anyone who understood plans, &«., could superintend the formotion of the permanent way, or platelaying, even without previous experience. He knew men to get £4 a week nine years ago for overseeing. There had boon a fall in wages since.

Reexamined: I know Mr Cone. To my mind the plaintiff’* services wore bettor than Mr Cone’*. I would give him £1 a week more.

Henry Woodham, engine driver, gave corroborative evidence.

John Kirkby, overseer o! work* for 17 or 18 year*, depo*ed that the wage* of an overseer varied from £3 to £8 per week. Plaintiff’* service* would be worth from £4 to £4 10* a week. Thi# would not include timekeeper’* work.

Cross-examined: I have never superintended railway work* in Now Zealand. I have at Homo. Thi# wo* the case for the plaintiff. The following evidence woe led for the defendant ! Peter M'Grath, contractor for the Amberley and Waipara Railway: Had advised plaintiff to come out to New Zealand. Had put plaintiff on as timekeeper, became ho could find no work but a* a labourer, which he was not fit for. The matter of timekeeping was not mentioned, but plaintiff took the place of a timekeeper who was discharged to make room for him: He was to do anything he could. Plaintiff’s duties and responsibilities grew every day. Plaintiff was not appointed overseer. No intimation was given to the Government. Mr Wither complained of his incapacity, but I did not discharge him as he was my brother. I said I would have to discharge him, and he said he would rather bo discharged than be subject to the annoyance from Mr Wither Plaintiff subsequently raid he would not complain of any rate of wage*. When a settling up wae made wit-

ness found that about £l4 or £l6 was due. He gave plaintiff a cheque for £4O to take : him to Sydney. Plaintiff then complained that ho was not paid enough, but mode no statement of what ho claimed. Witness thought ho hod been treated liberally, as lie hod received £8 10s a week, Mr Cone had had seven or eight years’ experience. He also owed witness £l9B, and the wages wont, much of them, in reduction of the debt. Mr Turner, a cWil engineer, had worked on the contract for £4. Huddleston, a much better man than plaintiff, got £3 a week and found himself. Cross-examined : I won’t say that I never promised to give him more than 30s a week, but I have no recollection of doing so. I always intended to give him more. I can hardly toll you whether Cone or plaintiff was my representative in my absence. They each did much the same work. Mr Cone bad been a butcher in Rangiora. Mr Turner took levels end professional work requiring more skill. Frederick Wither, Government Engineer in charge of the Waiparo contract, could not say what position plaintiff held. Plaintiff was placed there as his brother’s representative, bat had no knowledge of contract work. Witness would not have kept him there, as he was not suited for the place. It would be as much as he was worth if he got his " tucker.” A good overseer would be worth £3 10 to £4 a week at that time—not always with his keep. Cross-examined .- Plaintiff remained in the contract till the end, and took my instructions in the absence of his brother. John Xasterbrook, inspector of works, in chares of the Waiparo contract; did not think plaintiff was fit for overseer’s work. When witness was overseer to Ur E. G. Wright he kept the books also, and received £Blosa week, without being found. The usual wages for an overseer on the Government works was £2 ICs to £B, without board. George Cone gave corroborative evidence. He had been one of the defendant’s bondsmen. Cross-examined: I did similar work to plaintiff. I got £4 a week and my keep. I did not keep the hooks. 1 considered I was worth my wages. I had agreed to my wage* beforehand. 1 used sometimes to take instructions from, and sometimes to give instructions to, plaintiff. James John Henderson, overseer on the contract: Had received 30s a week as timekeeper. This was the case for the defence. In answer to his Honor, learned counsel agreed that plaintiff bad been paid at the rate of £2 11s 3d par week, exclusive of board. Learned Counsel having addressed the Court, His Honor gave judgment for plaintiff for 8s 9d a week more than he had received—£33 6s, without costs on either side. JOSEPH JUSSI T. THOMAS B HOOKS. This was an action for £2OO damages for breach of contract. Mr Joynt appeared for the 'plaintiff; Mr Harper for the defendant. The plaintiff holds 122 k acres of land near Barry’s Bay ; defendant lives at the Head of the Bay. The defendant had agreed to pay lid a lb for a crop of cocksfoot grass seed, and had out the crop, returning as the result 62531 b, or about half a bag to the acre. As the average crop is three bags to the acre, the plaintiff now claimed the difference. The defendant paid into Court £32 16s 7d. For the plaintiff the following evidence was led:—

Joseph Judge, hotelkeeper at Tai Tapu: Had made an agreement in Deo, 1879, with defendant, who was to harvest a crop of cocksfoot grass seed. The agreement was not in writing. The plaintiff had told defendant there were 122 acres at Barry’s Bay, and wanted 2d a lb. Eventually had accepted l|d a lb. Defendant was to give plaintiff notice to see the seed weighed, but never did so. Had no idea what the crop would be. The grass seed harvest commences early in January. Defendant afterwards told witness that there would be a large return. Several letters passed. On April 14,1880, Brooks promised to give returns as soon as the seed was cleaned. On June 7, Brooks promised a cheque for the amount. Witness had received no intimation as to when the seed was to be weighed. Had received a statement showing 52531 b as the crop on Hot. 20,1880. Witness asked him if he had not made a mistake. He eaid he bad not. Witness asked if he meant to say there was no more seed on the farm. He replied that he might not hare taken more than one-third, and that the rest of the seed was left on the ground. Witness asked why he did not take all the seed. Defendant replied that he (witness) knew why it was. Witness said he did not. Defendant said his men were always beery and muddled. Witness asked if defendant expected he was to suffer for that, and said he wonld expect lid a lb for every lb the farm yielded. The defendant said witness had nothing to show, and that hia word was as good in Court as the plaintiff’s. He also said that he had a witness to prove that he was to pay only for what he took off the ground. The season was one of the best ever known on (be Peninsula. A small corner of the same farm yielded, last year, seven bags to the acre. A bag averaged 1001 b. The farm had a lot of scrub, but grass seed could be got from it. He estimated that it should have yielded three bags to the acre, or 36,3001 b from the whole farm.

Cross-examined; I had cot been all over the- farm before I let it to the defendant. I had been over the tracks. The farm is bounded by the ooaoh road. It was fenced in with the exception of the back part. Twe sides were fenced. Portions of the back part were fenced. The land is on a slope, and has some gulleys. About one third of the land is bush ; there is some fallen timber on the land. By all appearance there had been fires on it. About 80 to 100 acres were clear ground, with cocksfoot grass. 1 could not say that cocksfoot was growing all over the farm. I know Bobert Stewart. I might hare asked him to take this grass seed. I don’t recollect his telling me ho would not cut it if it cost him nothing. Brooks first asked me about the seed. I considered it was his. I did not press him for payment. Be-examined: Brooks knew more about th? laud than I did. He runs cattle on the land adjoining. I use “ scrub ” and “ bush ’’ as synonymous words. Michael Keenan, farmer and contractor at Little Hirer; Had seen the farm about a week before defendant out the grass. There was a good crop on it, A fair crop would turn out three bags to the acre. The scrub might in places prevent the grass seed being got. Ho would put down about 2J bags to the acre taking the farm right through.

Cross-examined : I have several times walked aoroes the land. I eould see part of tho land from the road. I came up the spur into the main road. I »aw fully 2 ' acres. I thought the crop as good as any I had seen on the Peninsula at that time. That grass was not standing when I saw tho place after* wards, but some near tho road was. This could have boon out. That year I got from SJdfo Bjd net for my grass seed. Had I made the same bargain as Mr Brooks had, I would have taken every pound off tho land I could. „ Peter David, farmer, in Barry’s Bay, gave some immaterial evidence.

Mark Blew, a farmer, estimated tho crop on the plaintiff's farm at about two bugs to the acre all round. That would be a middling crop. He had received from lid to lid for bis seed. The price that year was IJd. Ho had got nearly nine bags to tho acre from his land, but only cleared land. Henry Smith, contractor, of Little River ; Had out seed on Mr Judge’s land in Barry’s Bay for Mr Brooks. Tho crop was a very good one, and would yield, ho would suppose, about three bags to tho acre. The grass seed was not well saved, as most of tho men were drunk. The drink came from Mr Brooks’, at the top of the bill. Frank Smith, labourer: The overseer was muddled, and out the worst of the seed, leaving the best. The men were, most of them, muddled in drink, which they got from Brooks. For six weeks’ work witness drew a balance of Bd. Tho rest was spent in drink. The amount threshed, unclean, before witness left, was 140 bogs j as much more was left uncut. The cleaning would cause a reduction

of one-third. Ho estimated the crop at about 200 clean bags. The heaviest teed grows in the dead icrub. He was to be paid Is an hour and to be found. Oroei-examinad: Was working for pUinfig now. James Hay, farmer at Pigeon Bay, estimated the cr. p at three bags to the acre. Robert Latter, farmer, estimated the crop at ten bushels to the acre. Patrick Fahey, labourer at Little River, estimated the crop at three bags clean to the acre all through. His own lands averaged seven hags to the acre. Robert Latter recalled: Had never seen any cattle running on the land. This was the case for the plaintiff. For the defendant the following evidence was led s Robert Stewart, farmer at Barry’s Bay: Know the land for close upon twenty years. About 20 to’2s acres were cleared, ihe rest was green or dry bush. The plaintiff had asked witness to cut the grass seed on »hares. Witness said that if ho waa to cut ill the grass seed he would not take it for nothing. There was a verv good crop on the bullock tracks; but in the bush the “ lawyers ” and supplejacks made it not worth cutting. The same year he had cut ISO acres for Mr Latter, and it averaged two bags to the acre. Generally started harvesting grass seed about J#n. 16 to 18. Had seen cattle in the seed wh> n Brooks started cutting, and previously. Cross examined : It would not pay 8s a d»y to cut the grass seed, except on the cleared land. Anything less than 3d a lb would not pay. He did not believe that there was more than 40 acres from which grass seed could be cut at all. Had never had an unpleasant word with Judge. The Court at this stage adjourned till 11 a.m. to-day, Tuesday.