ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 956, 18 February 1911, Page 3

ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT.

JONES V. COLEY AND BOCK. A CLAIM FOR At the Supreme Court, Palmerston North on Thursday before the Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout, George Thomas Jones, flax contractor, now of Palmerston North, but late of P'oxton, proceeded against Coley and Bock, flaxmillers, of Foxtou, to recover the sum of for breach of contract in connection with a paddocking agreement. Mr H. Gifford Moore appeared for plaintiff, and the defendants were represented by Messrs R. Moore and H. R. Cooper. The statement of claim set forth that on or about September 6th 1910, the plaintiff entered into an agreement with defendants to undertake the paddocking for the season 19TO-1 1 at 23s 6d per ton with a bonus of one shilling per ton on all fibre grading 75 points or over. The usual conditions in connection with similar contracts were inserted and also a provision that should any dispute arise in connection with f.auy of the conditions fourteen days notice on either side to terminate the contract. In pursuance of such agreement plaintiff entered the service of defendants, and worked until October 7th when the defendants by notice in writing, terminated the contract without reasonable cause. Through the termination of the contract plaintiff had suffered damage, and asked for judgment for The defence was a denial that the contract was terminated without reasonable cause, but contended it was terminated with the full consent of both parties. It was further contended that plaintiff had failed to carry out the conditions of the contract, and on Oct. 7 defendants gave 14 days notice of the termination of same, which the plaintiff accepted and received payment under the contract, as if the same had been lawfully determined, thus, the defendants contending, consenting to such termination.

Evidence was taken as follows ;

George Thomas Jones, flaxmill manager, plaintiff, stated that in accordance with a contract with defendants he undertook the paddocking of the fibre stripped by them. On the afternoon of October 6th he saw an opportunity to secure one or two loads of dry fibre for the mill, but in order to do so it would be necessary to keep one of the drivers, Knewstub, waiting. For doing so Knewstub roundly abused him, accusing him of wasting his employers’ lime, and threatening to report him at the mill. Witness told Knewstub that if he did not care to wait he could return to the mill empty, and he would stack the fibre in the paddock. Knewstub, however, decided to wait. When they had got about three-parts of the load on, the dray stopped in a small depression in the ground, which made the load appear slightly light on. Knewstub then wanted to tip the load, but witness told him he considered the load would be alright as soon as the dray was taken out of the hole, and if he tipped witness would consider it his duty to refuse to assist him in re-loading. Witness tied the load with a rope, but Knewstub persisted in tipping it, and returned to the mill with an empty dray. Witness reported the matter to his employers that night, as there was a verbal understanding between himself and Bock that any dispute with the fibre carters was to be reported to him. Witness explained the matter to Bock, and the latter informed him that he was quite within his rights to keep the fibre carters until five o’clock.. He said there would be no further trouble, and talked of discharging Kuewstub. He also said: “ You know what a mad little devil he is ; but we would not like to lose him on account of his being good to his horses.” They discussed the matter in a very friendly way. The next afternoon witness received a letter from Coley and Bock, giving him 14 days’ notice. The following afternoon Rout, one of his employees, came and told him that he had secured the job and Coley and Bock had sent him to see it he (witness) would transfer his contract to him. Witness declined to do so. Witness finished out the fortnight, and then got squared up. He worked six weeks and four days, and his average weekly earnings during that time were about £6 ns 6d. The earlier part of the season would be the worst, and he had expected to average £8 per week lor the whole season. The lowest wages he had received for the past six years was £5 10s per week. When he left the employ of Coley and Bock he endeavoured to find other employment, but was unable to do so. At present he was assisting his wife in connection with a fruit and confectionery business in Main street, Palmerston North. To Mr Cooper; Witness had had no trouble with the fibre carters previously. They had not complained to him of delay in assisting. After received letter on October 7th, did uot tell Rout to try and get the contract. Witness told Rout he had received notice. Frederick Dawson gave evidence to the effect that hearing Jones was finishing up with Coley and Bock, he had approached them one Saturday in October in reference to taking on the contract. Bock told witness he had sent out for Rout and was going to give him the first refusal. VV itness also gave evidence in reference to the usual practices followed in

connection with loading and unloading fibre. Albert W. Dudson and Percy T. Robinson also gave evidence as to practices usually followed in the paddocks. For the defence, Mr Cooper called William Knevvstub, who stated that previous to the trouble over tipping the fibre he had complained to plaintiff in reference to unloading, and he had replied that he was boss and could do as he liked. On October 6th, when they had got about 25 cwt. of fibre on the dray, the wheels got into a furrow, and the load slipped back. Witness told plaintiff he would have to tip it, but Jones objected and said if he did he would not help him re-load it. Witness considered it was dangerous to attempt to take the load in, so tipped it up and returned to the mill with an empty dray. To Mr Moore : It was impossible to pull the load forward, as it had slipped too far.

Walter Bock stated that on the night of October 6th plaintiff came to his house and explained what had taken place that afternoon. Plaintiff threatened to pull Knewstubb’s nose. Witness said he was sorry there was trouble, but would do nothing until he saw the carter. Saw the carter the following morning, and in consequence of what took place wrote the letter to plaintiff suggesting the contract should be terminated. Did not see Jones until he got settled up, and he then made no complaint. Rout came to witness in reference to contract, witness did not send for him. To Mr Moore; The contract was not let to Rout on October Bth. Did not send Boufield to tell Rout to come in. Dawson came about the contract on the Sth, and witness told him the matter was not yet fixed up with Jones. Rout’s name came up in some way, and witness told Dawson that in any case he would give Rout the first refusal. At that time he had not made any arrangement with Rout at all. Knew Rout went to Jones to see him about transferring the contract. When Rout came to see witness he said Jones had sent him.

To Mr Cooper : He was positive he made no arrangements with Rout until he was clear from Jones. Harry Rout, in evidence, stated that previous to taking the contract he was working for plaintiff and knew there had been trouble between Jones and the carters. He remembered the dispute between Knewstub and Jones. Did not hear what took place, but Jones afterwards told him that he wanted to put a rope over the load but Knewstub said it was too risky. On the following Saturday, Jones told witness that he had got notice to quit, and if he (witness) thought he had any chance of getting it he had better go down to see Bock. Went down the same day, but did not then get the contract, but got it subsequently. This closed the case. His Honour said he would go through the evidence and deliver judgment the following morning. JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS. Yesterday morning the Chief Justice delivered judgment, which was for defendants with costs against plaintiff according to scale, witnesses’ expenses and disbursements.