DISTRICT COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XII, Issue 112, 14 May 1877, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

[Before his Honor Judge Broad.] Primmer v. Kerk. This wa3 an action to recover £125 2s, less £32 which the plaintiff admitted having received from the defendant. Mr Fell and Mr Bunny appeared for the plaintifE, and Mr Pitt instructed by Mr Acton Adams for the defendant. The following jury were sworn in: — J. Arnold, 11. Baigent, H. Balme, and T. 11. Bannehr (foreman.) Mr Fell having opened the case for the plaintiff, called George Conrad Primmer, whose evidence was similar to that given |in the Resident Magistrate's Court, and which has already appeared in our columns. In cross-examination by Mr Pitt, the witness said:~At the time of my selling out to Mr Kerr my brother and I were in difficulties. I frequently asked Mr Kerr to supply me with books but he did not and so I got them myself. I kept a ledger, day-book, and stockbook. I kept no cash book. There was no entry made of cash received. The keep for the men was never entered anywhere. I was to get £2 a week with a rise of 5s per week until it reached £3. I never agreed for £2 5s per week. I never rendered any ac- j

count for wages to Kerr. The account sent in by Mr Bunny in April was for £2 5s per week, but that was in consequence of his misunderstanding my statement. I issued a summons against Kerr for 125 sheep, in the Resident Magistrate's Court, but withdrew it because I afterwards remembered having received a cheque from him. I believe I sold him 125 sheep, bufc cannot swear to it. Kerr bought from me some sheep that I had purchased from Rives, but paid for twelve less than he received. When Kerr closed the Richmond shop in December he did nofc tell me he should not want me any more. I went to Tarndale for him a few days after. He did not tell me so afc Tarndale. I told Green that I had got the sack, bufc would nofc take it until I was settled up with. Mrs Kerr never told me I should not be wanted any more. I saw Kerr at Jervis' on the 12th of March, when he gave me a cheque for £2, and told me he did nofc think he should want me any more. I have bought cattle for Mr Kerr in the Waimea since the shop was closed. After going through a complicated "and entangled mass of accounts it was ultimately decided to refer to the jury the question of the contract between the parties, leaving it to arbitration to decide the amount due. John Pratt: I consider that a man holding Primmer's position in the business would have been entitled to £3 a week and his board. Martha Higgs was called to prove thafc she had sold a dog to Primmer for £10, for which he gave an order on Kerr, who on paying it said that he was buying the dog for himself. This closed the case for the plaintiff, and Mr Pitt, having opened for the defendant, called John Kerr, who said : In September I bought out the Primmera, and the plaintiff asked me to take him on. There was nothing definite said about wages. A month later I went over the place and agreed to give him £2 5s a week. Nothing was said about a rise. I give my foreman in town £2 5s and meat out of the shop. There was no agreement about my keeping Primmer. He was to see to the shop, and to purchase stock if any was wanted in my absence. With reference to the dog, Mrs Higgs came to me in a greafc state, and said if I did nofc cash Primmer's order she would send for a constable, so, as she wasjin a great way, I chaffed the old girl a bit, and afc last I said, " Well, old 'un, I'll take it for myself if it comes to that." I said this in chaff. I paid the money for Primmer, and he has had the dog ever since. I never claimed the dog. Primmer claims £1 for extra labor for going over to Waimea West at night for a beast, bufc he is not entitled to it as he was then in my pay. Cross-examined: A pound may not be much to a lawyer, but it is a good deal to a butcher. I was not to board Primmer, but he managed to take care of himself, and got potted salmon and all sorts of good things afc my expense. Counsel having addressed the jury bis Honor summed up, when the issues agreed upon were sent to the jury. These w Ith the findings were as follows:— Did defendant agree to pay for extra labor? — Yes. What was a fair remuneration? — The plaintiff has been sufficiently paid by a day's wages allowed by defendant. Did the defendant buy the dog for himself?— No. On what terms did the defendant hire 'the plaintiff?— Two pounds a week for the -first I month, and £2 5s a week afterwards. j The case was then referred to the arbitration of Mr Seaife and Mr Canning, as also was the cross-action of Kerr v. Primmer. Brunner v. the Pdbmo Trustee. Mr Acton Adams appeared for" the plaintiff, and Mr Fell for the defendant; who had filed a plea thafc the action was barred by the Statute of Limitations. Mr Adams said that he thought the plea was a good one, and judgment was accordingly given for the defendant.