DISTRICT COURT.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2944, 1 September 1882, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

TIMARU—THIS DAY. (Before His Honor Judge Ward.) CIVIL CASES. Gamack v. H.Z.L. and M.A. Company, claim, £43 2s 3d, damages. Mr White for plaintiffs, Mr Perry for defendants. Mr White ashed that all witnesses in the case be ordered out of Court, including Mr LeCren, who was the Manager of the Company. His Honor thought that would be unfair, unless on ajjocial grounds, as Mr LeCren would wish to instruct his counsel as the case proceeded. Mr White pressed the point and quoted cases in of his request. His Honor having reviewed a number of cases bearing on the matter, Mr White said he would not press the request, and Mr LeCren was therefore allowed to remain.

Mr White then stated the case for plaintiff, as follows:—Mr Gamack being indebted to defendant, offered to give up bis properties in liquidation of his liabilities to defendants, who thereupon undertook to relieve him and to pay up all working expenses of properties. He (plaintiff) was then instructed to pay off all bis station servants, through defendants. These were all paid off but one shepherd, whom Mr LeCren refused to pay, and whom Mr Gamack was afterwards compelled to pay. It was to recover this amount, which ought to have been paid by defendant, that the present action was brought. He called the following evidence John Alexander Gamack said he delivered the letter (produced) to defendant and after assigned his properties to defendant. He signed the deed (produced). He afterwards received the letter of release (produced) from defendants.

Mr Perry objected to the production of this letter as irrelevant to the issue. His Honor decided on receiving it. Examination continued—He was then instructed to give notice to his station servants. He gave notice to none but station hands and house servahts. He had seven servants at Howlands, male and female, including Autonio Francis, whose wages were the subject of this action. He gave him a memorandum to Mr LeCren to get his wages. At about May 19, he was told to draw no more cheques. He wns therefore obliged to send a memo to Mr LeCren asking him to pay this man’s account. He bad been sued for the amount of of Francis’ wages, and had paid it; but though be had made frequent appliestions to the company for reimbursement, be had never received it. Francis was a factotum on the station. He had never been a groom before. Witness had always paid servants what they wanted from time to time. This was a station custom. He had, as per agreement, handed everything over to the Company peaceably.. To Mr Perry—Newlands and Balmoral only, not Braemar, were all the Company had to do with. My liabilities were, Mr LeCren says, £26,000. I say that is not right: they \iere greater. My outside liabilities I am not sure of.

Mr White objected to this evidence as irrelevant, bat His Honor ruled that it was admissible. Examination continued—There are some other sums, small ones, which Mr Le Cron has not paid. 1 am not in the habit of being friendly with coy grooms

and servants. Sir. If yon mean was it arranged that Francis should sue me, it was not so arranged. I paid everyone by orders as usual, orders on the'Company. At the time the agreement was signed I did not, I believe, tell Mr LeCren specially what Francis’ wages were. Francis need to live in the kitchen, as we had, then, no hot cook. He slept apart, in the harness room. He occasionally accompanied me when I went driving. I afterwards, when managing for the Company, privately engaged this man. He is still in my employ. On April 17 and 22,1 bad a conversation with Mr LeCren about wages. He asked mo if there was much owing, and I said not a great deal. He certainly never asked me specifically what I owed for wages. I positively deny that I ever said to Mr LeCren that there was three months’wages dne. There has been a mistake of £22 in an account previously tendered. I did say “ they are all closely paid up,” I deny it wholly. , , , Re-examined The gardener had nearly a year’s wages due at this time, the nursemaid also had some £l9 due to her. Ford also had £lB 12 due him. These were all Howlands servants. Anthony Francis said he had served Mr Gamaok as groom and generally useful man, since June 1879. He had never been previously a groom, though he had been among horses all his life. He had to look after six cows, and as many as twelve pigs. He also carted wool and skins to by dray or spring cart. He used to lend a hand with sheep also. Broke in some station horses while he was there. Mr White here explained to His Honor that he intended by this examination to prove that the witness was not a private gentleman’s servant, but an Ordinary station baud. Examination continued—Mr LeCren refused to pay witness,when he brought in Mr Gamack’s order. He also told witness it would be throwing good money after bad if he (witness) were to sue Mr Gamaok. Witness however, did not

.suppose Mr Gamack would object to pay him! He afterwards sued Mr Gamack, and was paid by the cheque (produced). To Mr Perry—l came to the colony on February 1, 1879, and Mr Gamack engaged me on the 12th. He engaged me to look after horses, pigs, cows, etc. I looked'after the carriage horses and cart horse, and the horse, I rode, as well Vas Mr Gamack’s dog-cart and wagonette. I used to go with Mr Gamack whenever I was wanted. I used to cart stores for the house and the station-r-just whatever might be needed. I have carted wool to Temuka. I have often carted skins. I cannot tell you how often I have carted skins. I have taken skins to Mr Moss Jonas many times. I kept no account of the number of times I have carted skins to Mr Jonas. When I tell you I had to break in. horses, yon ought to know yourself there was something else to do besides looking on. Mr Gamack drove the tandem, 1 think four times. This was the case for the plaintiff.

The defence was that Francis was a private servant of Mr Gamack. For the plaintiff it was contended that the agreement between Mr LeCren and Mr G-amack covered nil servants.

His Honor gavs judgment for the plaintiff without costs.