DISTRICT COURT.

Oamaru Mail, Volume IV, Issue 1214, 8 March 1880, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

TO-DAY. (Before His Honor District judsre Ward. CI VII'CASES. Thomas, Norman Kessed v. Robert Gabites.— Claim for £ll6 6s Bd, damages for breach of agreement. Mr. O'Meagher appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Newton for the defendant. From the-evidence"given by,the plaintiff, it appeared that he had been engaged by the defendant on the 14th January as shopman, at the rate of L 3 10s per week until March,'whe'n'fcherate wasrtobe increased to L 4. per week. On the 9th February the defendant gave plaintiff notice that his services would not. be required after the following Saturday.' To this the plaintiff replied, ■■■ AlL.right," and left on .the I,4th February. .The only, gro.und given by the defendant for. dismissing the plaintiff was that he'was too slow. Plaintiff denied that he was slow, and stated that he could do all that was required of a first-class salesman, At the eConclusion of the plaintiff's evidence His Honor asked how the counsel for the plaintiff intended to support the pleading that the engagement was a yearly hiring. '' Some argument .then, took place upon the point. Mr. Newton moved; that the plaintiff be non-suited .upon, the point that the engagement was not a hiring for a year, that it was only a we.ekly hiring, and that therefore the plaintiff had no, grounds of action. ■ The learned'counsel quoted a number of cases in support'of his contention.

Mr. O'Meagher followed, contending that, at, aijyrate, the engagement niade was,' aboQrdi'pg tq' the le'ttetf written by the; defendent, until March, and he had therefore grounds for seeking damages for wrongful dismissal before March. i His Honor said he could not see how he; could be expected to hold that there yrasi an engagement, for a' year; Clearly, sup-; posing that, in the letter produced, there; was an agreement'that plaintiff should bej engaged until March, there was nothing; to Bh«W hRW was to poptipue in force. The promise of L 4 per week after March clearly implied; the enjoyment of a weekly wage of L 4 per week. He supported the point raised; by Mr. Newton that the agreement could not read as a yearly hiring. Mr. Newton then urged that this point having been sustained, the plaintiff must be nonsuited, as, the plaintiff's case; having been closed, he had no power to amend; the declaration. He could not come into the|Courfc and sue for for breach of a yearly agreement, and, when he found that he had made a mistake, seek to recover upon an engagement for a shorter period. His Honor held that there was nothing in the declaration to prevent the plaintiff recovering for a shorter period than that shown in th§ d§cJaratio,n ; Jf % plaintiff fqv dap}agps breach of an agreement, lj.e was certainly entitled to a judgment if he established a smaller olaim than hp had sued for, i Ifcobept Grabitea, the defendant, was then palled, and gave evidence to the effect that the plaintiff had not proved himself so competent as expected, and gave instances of the want of capacity shown by the defendant. The evidence, of John Hood, Qharjes Knowsley, G, §, pope, ftnd Thos. W. Pope then taken to show that the Custom in the drapery business was to terminate any engagement upon a week's notipe qr the payment of a week's wages, Counsel on both side? then addressed' theQaqpt,

Rig IJojiop said the plaintiff was olearly: entitled to receive bis wages up to the end of Mar oh, for which term he was engaged, and one week's salary in addition in lieu of notice. That would be fifteen days' salary, from the 14th February to the 29 th February, at 10s per day, L 7 10s; and one week, at L 4, in lieu of notice. Judgment would, therefore, be given for Lll 10s and costs. j Mr. Newton then asked judgment? might be stayed |or, a time in order that he migiii consider whether"or' not 'he would appeal,

His Honor remarked that fourteen days must elapse before execution could issue. Thomas Richmond v. William Aitken— Claim, L 165. Mr. O'Meagher appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Hislop for the defendant. < The statement of the defence not having been filed within the proper time, the case was adjourned until next sitting, the defendant being ordered : to! pay costs within three days. IN BANKRUPTCY. ' " In re John M'Sweeney-—Mr. Newton applied for an order for the bankrupt's discharge. —Granted. In re Arthur Denton—Mr. Newton applied for an order directing the payment of the debtor's costs out' of the estate. — Granted. 'ln te Christopher Galbraith Mr. O'Meagher, on behalf of Messrs. Julius and Balmer, applied for an order for the payment, of, debtor's costs out of the estate.—Granted.