Court of Petty Sessions.

Marlborough Express, Volume IV, Issue 170, 10 April 1869, Page 5

Court of Petty Sessions.

BLENHEIM, MONDAY, APRIL sth, 1869. [Before S. L. Muller, Esq., R.M., and J. B. Wemyss, Esq., J.P.] AO PART V. MACAULAY. This was an action to recover a sum of £23, alleged to be due to plaintiff as wages. There was also a cross action to recover a sum of £74 from Aopart by Macaulay, but set down for hearing on Monday next. Mr. Nelson stated that, at the request of Mr. Pitt, he was agreeable to the cross-aCtion being heard to-day. The Chairman thought the course proposed would not be feasible, as this was a Court of Petty Sessions, while the crossaction was in the Resident Magistrate’s Court. After a lengthy consultation, the Bench ruled that it had not power to change the venue, as the summons had been issued in the Petty Sessions Court. The difficulty might be met by Aopart’s case being Heard now, and afterwards holding a Resident Magistrate’s Court for Macaulay’s easel Mr, Nelson, for plaintiff, said the claim was for wages due by Macaulay himself, for services as cook at Manuka Island, and for eight weeks’ services at Renwicktown previously. The amount was reduced to £2O, in order to bring it under thuJurisdiction, I ■ „

Henry A opart deposed that he was a laborer, and a foreigner, living at Blenheim. In June, July, and part of August last;- he was in defendant’s service, leavihgl’on August 6, on which date was engagethto go to Manuka Island by Kinsey, deceased!; 4 1 worked two months as engaged,- and' as agreed to with defendant, at £1 per week. When I went to him, he agreed to give me £l—the wages going. Was employed in digging the garden and cleaning out stable. No part of the money has teen paid me since, nor asked him for it until leaving him lately. He told me should have to'wait twelve months for my money. After Kinsey’s death, on 18th October, Macaulay came up to the inquest, and told me he left everything to me. Had no agreement as to wages, nor was anything said about them, but he saw in a book how much I got from Arthur Kinsey. He overhauled the books before that, and asked me to remain' oh as usual. Left Manuka Island the day the place was given up, 6th March. Was'employed as cook and general manager of the house itself, having nothing to do with the management of the station between October and March last. When there was nothing to do in the house, went outside and worked about. Can’t read or write. After Kinsey’s death, defendant said he would send another man up, and sent Grant with a new book. He was to tell Grant of everything he sold. He told him every night, and he put them down. Macaulay was frequently at Manuka Island after. He was aware of .who were getting credit. The men on the station got credit. He gave Macaulay, and afterwards Grant, when he was leaving, moneys! By Mr. Pitt: When Macaulay came up he said he would give him the wages going. Witness came from Nelson to Macaulay’s. Did not ask him to take him bn. asr Cook. Macaulay did. not tell: him ixehdid hot want him, but he might work -for. h is: t uckar, f He asked-Mr. MTvpr for some’ clothes, a«d ha got them on security. He novortohi MHvor that Macaulay was not going to give "him any wages. He brought down horses on a Sunday to Benwick, and on the Monday asked Macaulay to square up with him. He said he would not get paid for twelve months. Witness said he couldi not wait as he had debts to defray. Macaulay then said, well, wait till the horses are sold. Macaulay never sent a list of the goods sent up. . The Bench remarked they did not- soe how that affected the claim for wages.; Mr. Pitt said he wished to show that plaintiff had committed a breach of trust, and if that were proved, the Bench Icould disallow his wages. An unfaithful servant was not entitled to wages.

The Bench, said this, was aweekly hiring, not a yearly. ' v Archibald Grant, being called into tho witness-box, said he wanted to know who

was to pay him his expenses. He had been subpoenaed from a distance. . The Chairman—That will depend upon how the case will go. The party that loses will have to pay you. Grant—But if Aopart should not be able to pay me ? The Chairman—Then you must put up with it. The Act says “ every person present in Court who shall be required to give evidence, and who shall refuse to be sworn, and give evidence, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding £lO or, in default of payment, to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding fourteen days.” Do you refuse to be sworn ?

Grant—Ho, I do not. Being sworn, witness said he was engaged at Manuka Island as shepherd. He was supplied with a book in which to put down everything sold as the cook told him. All the entries in book produced up to January 2, were his. The account of the cash received was at the end of the book. The day he left, he was authorised to get cash from Aopart, and on making Up the books, he found £7 19s. had to come from him, which he gave. It was his impression that Macaulay was not satisfied with Aopart, and that he was not acting fairly. He led him several times to believe that witness suggested that he should remove Aopart. Witness believed he was a weekly servant. Could not state what quantities of grog were received at Manuka Island. The Bench did not see that affected the ease.

Mr. Pitt quoted from Smith on Law of Master and Servant, that when a servant was guilty of gross immoral conduct, or if moneys embezzled by him exceeded the amount of his wages, that he was not entitled to anything. The Chairman said they could not mix a civil with a criminal action.

John Gore was called, and deposed t conveying some grog to Manuka Island, but the quantities he could not tell now. I got no list of them from Macaulay. Macaulay’s horses got some of the oats. Fed it for three days. Did not pay for them. Macaulay went up with his horses which were fed there.

George Kinsey, cattle-driver, deposed that he was a brother of the deceased Arthur Kinsey. Was at Manuka Island after the interests of deceased. Was not present when a list of the property was taken. Brought a list down with me. Have not been informed what there was until this morning. Macaulay told me. Was staying at the Accommodation House, and got goods from Aopart, which were charged to me. The account was £3 10s. Plaintiff bought m saddle from me, but has not'yet paid for it. Did not tell M acaulay to settle the account. There was an arrangement between Macaulay and me. Asked him to get the money from plaintiff, and stop it out of his account. Said it would do another time when I came up again. Macaulay was up there about a fortnight during mustering time. Plaintiff gave me a list of what was required, but don’t know what it was. There was some stores up there, including some ale supposed not to be good. By Mr. Pitt: I authorised Macaulay to receive the sum due to me.- Plaintiff was not present, nor has he paid me. Mr. Pitt said that in reference to the case, so far as his stay in Eenwick, he should prove that plaintiff was in very bad circumstances, and agreed to serve for his tucker.. As for the other item, he would prove gross misconduct, if not embezzlement of goods entrusted to him. John Macaulay, publican, Eenwicktown, deposed that when he returned from Nelson, Aopart came and requested him to engage him to go to Manuka Island. I referred him to Kinsey, my partner, who was manager there. Said Kinsey would soon be down, when he could see him. Told him I could not employ anyone. He then said he would work with me for his tucker until*‘Kinsey came. Next day left to go to Picton. After two or three days he returned, and I told him he could go on until Kinsey came. He left rue in August. I understand by my hooks that he was engaged by my partner on 6tb August as cook and general servant. Never saw- him again till 19th October, when he came to tell me Kinsey was dead. I sent him down to the police, and did not see him again till the inquest. Then heard a- conversation with a stranger who had again left to secure a claim of 17s. Refused to have anything to do with it, and t ld him I should hold him responsible for L there was at the station, and for fees for crossing the river, &c. He was to sell spirits, &c , for me. Took a list of all in the house. Never agreed to give him any wages at Eenwick. By Mr. Nelson: He was to do what work he liked. Gave him a few drinks, and charged them, trusting to his honesty. I told Kinsey about him. He did not do much. My brother was there. Plaintiff was an

extra hand, and was cooking for the station. Told him I should hold him responsible. He was not to give credit to strangers, or to persons I did not know. Told Grant I was dissatisfied with the way things were going on about money. Was satisfied while [was there. Sent him up goods from time to time. Did not know whether the £l7 I received was correct or not. Found fault with him in March, and when he came down on 20th January, and stayed a few days. Mr. Nelson addressed the Court, and pointed out the extreme improbability of a man like plaintiff working for his tucker, and upon the circumstance that no witnesses had been called by defendant to prove his assertion, nor did he discharge plaintiff when he was dissatisfied with him, and therefore claimed a verdict for full amount.

Judgment for plaintiff for £l2. Mr. Pitt asked that, as the claim had only partly succeeded, the costs should be divided. The Court refused the application, and fixed the costs at £l3. AOPART V. MACAULAY. Defendant was sued in this case as partner in the firm of Macaulay and Kinsey. The plaintiff proved being engaged by deceased. Mr. Pitt said he would consent to a judgment for the sum claimed, £6 ss. 6d., with costs £l 13s. The Chairman agreed to adjourn the hearing of the cross-action, Macaulay v Aopart, until April 19th. Execution not to be issued in the cases heard until this case was decided.