R. M. COURT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume IX, Issue 55, 6 February 1885, Page 2

R. M. COURT.

YESTERDAY, (Before R, Ward, Esq., R.M.) W. Crabtree and Sons v. Chas. Trickle* bank. Mr G. F. Hawkins for defendant asked for a rehearing of this case. . \ Mr Baker for plaintiffs objected. The Magistrate granted a rehearing on the condition that evidence thereat I be confined to payments on accduiit of the promissory; note the subject of the action. Costs of former trial to be paid. Alex. Black v. Alex. McMirin.r-rClaim £ol for three months wages at £3 per weak under agreement to employ plairitiff as overseer printer and one month's wages m lieu of notice. Mr Johnstoil for plaintiff and Mr J. H. Hankins for defendant. I Alexander Black sworn, deposed thaSfc he had occupied responsible positions a^ a printer for the last ten years. About 14th November last wrote to defendant asking whether he had a vacancy. Sa\^ defendant on 31st December. Received letter produced 2nd January last offering post of overseer at .£3 per woek for three months, a month's notice to terminate engageniont. Wrote by return mail accepting tho offer. Arrived m Palmers-: ton on Monday following, had an interview with plaintiff same evening and went to work next morning. Continued to word until Saturday, but not as over- . seer. Had several conversations afterwards with him but he did not express dissatisfaction. Some time after received note produced informing him that he (defendant) had heard that witness had been drunk and asking an explanation. Saw defendant and asked him what he meant by the letter. Defendant- said that he had just heard what was contained m the letter, but that he was so affected by illness m his family that he could not go into the matter then. Witness went to work again as usual. At the conversation defendant said the question of oversership would be settled afterwards when Mr McKelvie came down. Subsequently received letter produced intimating that Mr Wakelin would retain position as overseer. Denied the accusations made against him. By Mr Hankins : Did- not assume position of overseer ; was always 'ready to do so. Wrote to defendant to Ray that he (witness) could not take any other position than that of overseer. Did not go personally to commence work as overseer. When he went to work at first he found that he could not commence as overseer, and since then hod been working at Mr Leary's at odd times, filling up the time till after this when he might take up. a position; to travel lor Mr Leary. Was working for Mr Leary at .so much per hour. No .definite arrangement has been made with Mr Leary. Defendant has never offered to take him back again. Mr Hankins, m opening the case tor the defence, contended that the plaintiff had broken the agreement himself. ■- Alexander McMinn deposed that he was publisher of the Manawatu Standard. Saw plaintiff after several communications as to engagement and had conversation with him. Heard that plaintiff had been addicted to drink. Told him so prior to the engagement Plaintiff said he was ashamed to say the accusation was true, but that he (plaintiff) assured him that it would never occur again. Witness told plaintiff that Mr Galvin had advised him to have a stipulation m the agreement that on | the first occasion of drunkenness there should be instant dismissal. Plaintiff gave an assurance that he (witness) should have no misgiving on that head. Asked plaintiff whether what he (defendant) had heard about him was true, and he (plaintiff) admitted that it was but the matter had been made out worse than it actually was. Hod made no definite arrangement with Mr Wakelin to continue aa overseer pending final arrangement with plaintiff. Told plaintiff that his confidence had been shaken m plaintiff, but did not put an end to the engagement until after this action had been brought. Was prepared to abide by the arrangement and pay plaintiff M per week up to that time. Wrote to plaintiff to say that pending further arrangement Mr Wakelin would retain position as overseer. Plaintiff admitted that he was unable to get to the office m proper tune to do his. work for Mr Hoggen and had to apologise to him. Heard no complaint of plaintiff's intern* perance during the time he was m his employment. The day plaintiff gave his . assurance that he would not drink again he did the very thing again 'on his "way to Woodville m returning from Palmerston fitter first interview re engagement with him (witness). ' ' Mr J. P. Leary : deposed, that plainhad been employed by him at about £2 , per week. There was a possible arrangement which might be made Between . himself and the plaintiff. It is difficult for a master printer to. obtain.employment just now. Plaintiff is considered to be a very good printer. Recently heard that at one time he used to take too much to drink. " George Wakelin : deposed, that he was employed by defendant as overseer and on the 14th Jan. had received notice from defendant to terminate his engage* ment. The Magistrate said that m this case ho considered that a contract had been entered into by both parties for plaintiff: to act as overseer to defendant. Plain*' tiff was not permitted to do so. fl« (the Mgaistrate) thought there had been • breach of contract, and sitting as a jury he was of opinioh that £10 damages wa* sufficient. Judgment for £$\Q and costs 37 s - H.ilooinbo and Sherwiil v. Th.om.aa. Goo-Hson — Judgment summons. Adjourned to next Court day. .H. W. Baker v.R.Laigh — Case to be tried before Justices next' day. N. Heromaia v. VV. Hunia — Case withdrawn: ■_ j It N. Keeling v. T Morton—Defendant was charged with neglecting to report the birth of a child, and was fined ss. T. R. Walton v. W. H. Smith— Claim £24. Commission for collector of accounts of, Manaxv&tn Times. '-' Mr Hawkins for plaiutiff and Mr Johnston for defendant. Tbos. R. Walton sworn, deposed that defendant asked him to all tho collecting for his office. Said be had no deaire to take any business .on hand which would be dainagiug to his other employments. Defendant represented that the incomiug quarter would represent be tween three and fouc hundred pounds from the Ist of October to the end of December. Defendant asked what com* mission would be sufficient j witne§a replied be would leave it to ' him as to what he thought f*»ir. ginallv 'he told me that the commission ' would be 5 per cent, on the first £100, 7£ per ceut. on two huudivd pounds, and 10 per cent. on three hundred on all receipts. It was agreed that he (witness) should commence colecling on those terms. Defendant handed over nil accounts and| sub* scribcrs' book. With the exception of contras (which defendant said ho had to look through) he posted all accounts to customers. He understood ho was to get commission on all receipts. Afterwards defendant gayo witness certain qf the contra accounts to send to parti**. The first: payment made to the office was $8 5s Gd. Defendant asked witness wiiethfer he "had deducted commission. Witness replied that he did not adopt that 'cqnise but would charge' 'com mission aj r en.j"pf month. Defendant did ''not djbj&t fo that course. Had access to books. Arrangement went on to 9th January, Made no further reference' to oAimniti-

Biim till that date owing to the fact th t defendant was complaining ot th« scarcity oc money. Paid all moneys m a« collected. On 9tb January V_d renpresence be asked me why I referred to that book to ascertain amount of commission. He. (def-ndant) said commisrewound be Wed on amount o cash paid into the office. Witness laid the paper down and asked whether this w*M "»>«ve.» Defendant replied "the arrangement I made with you was for commission on amount paid m hy you at the office." Witness then sent m an account to defendant who came and demanded collection book which he refused to deliver up. Afterwards received letter produced asking for supply of all accounts for which he (witness) had given receipts, all amounts paid to him (defendant) and amount of postages when cheque would be sent. Supplied this information required. Then sent letter produced intimating that he (Syitness) expected per dentage on the gross receipts and received m reply letter produced stating that the arrangement made was to be a per centage on the amounts only collected by plaintiff and paid m during the month. The statements made m the letter were untrue from beginning to end. The letter stated that without defendant's authority he (plaintift) had taken a complete eppy of his (defendant's) books, and that he (plaintiff) had no authority to settle accounts where there were contras; defendant said be was willing to pay commission of 5 per cent, on £115 15s 2d; the collections per month never exceeding £100. Defendant has charged me with cost of advertisements for Mutual Victorian Insurance and Accident Society which he (witness) was not liable for. . Mr Johnston said defendant undertook m reference to contras to pay commission on the balance collected after deducting! sontras. Witness told customers either to pay hna or at the office. Posted Rev. Mr Bairn's account by defendant's instructions* Induced payment or squaring up oT accounts detailed on list m evidence. Atl.iccbnuta against the customers outside palmerston North were posted and witness did nothing farther, and they Were paid into the office, but he claimed commission on those accounts. Defen-danti-undertook himself to settle certain centra accounts. If ho (witness) called at: any house and saw the housekeeper .which -he repeatedly did and left the aecbuht he considered he induced payment. •"'■ Adjumed to next court day. Court sat up to 10.45 p.m. fc> *,.■;* THIS DAY. (Before G. M, Snelson and J. Waldegrave, Esqs., Js'.P.) H. W. Baker (bailiff) ; v. Richard Leigh.— Claim for work and labor as bailiff, six days at the rate of 4s per day and 'ss execution, total £19s. Mr J. H. "Hankins for plaintiff and Mr G. F. Hawkins for defendant. Mr Hankins having informed the I Bench of the nature of the case called the plaintiff, H. W. Baker, who swore he was employed by Mr Leigh to issue a distress for rent on Mrs Spencer. Proceeded to a cottage m Taonui-strccfc and there seized a sewing machine belonging to the said Mrs Spencer. He kept it six days stowed m an auction room. There was a dispute between tho parties concerned, and Mr Leigh stopped the sale, but subsequently the machine was sold by his instructions oh 23rd January; Mr Leigh told me he would pay me next day. j By Mr G. F. Hawkins : Put bill of charges on warrant delivered. Was told by Dir Leigh to seize the machine, could find nothing else. Told Mrs Spencer he was taking the machine to an auction room. Did not act man informal way. Had no recollection of asking Mr Hawkins what the costs were. The transaction was not taken out of my hands on account of the irregularity of procedure on j my part. Did not tell Mrs Spencer the j&uix was All informal. Did tell Mr Leigh tere was J something left out that ought "halve been inserted m the papers, one .''of the schedules was incomplete having no charges m it. Richard Leigh, deposed, instructed M r Eanltain to prepare papers. Had experience in* those matters. An thorized bailiff to proceed but did hot instruct him to seize machine particularly. The tenant had cleared out and gone to itnottier jioqse. ? When bailiff was first fiisrVncted fie walked about for five or six days without taking action, which was annoying. Employed White to cart thejgoojdf away and told him to notice whatever was taken, and to see how the bailiff acted. Never refused to pay the man. The machine was not sold, and is now m my possession br security by consent of tenant. By Mr •HanUins : Baker told me that a few days after rcceiviug tho warrant, Mrs Spencer went .to the Court and was there informed by the Clerk that she hud •n action of law against myself for wrongful seiaure. Never refused him payment. He would have been paid long ago had he sent his account to Mr Hawking, r ■'•■- ; :"■■ ■' i Both Counsel then addressed the Bench, Mr Hankins contending that his client-hod acted correctly m (he affair, that he bad applied for payment and bad been refused, hence the present action, he was therefore entitled to a judgment with costs. Mr Hawkins on the other had contended there had been gross irregularity and parelpsßnes.e on the part ftf the bailiff and be had by this caused considerable expense to his client ; had he applied as j directed he would have been paid and this action need not have been taken. He also pointed out that m seizing the sewing machine he had taken a tool of trade, -an additional error on his part. He hoped the Bench would see the mat- , ter m its true light and give judgment for defendant. The Bench after due deliberation considered the object had been gained by the seizure of the machine, and although there hod been some irregularities m procedure the baliff had acted correctly m the main); they would therefore give judgment for plaintiff with costs 10s, J t otal £1 19s.