A PECULIAR BUSINESS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 368, 20 April 1910, Page 3

A PECULIAR BUSINESS.

A MAN WITH A STAGGI-miXG (J AIT. Tho tliird, and probably the final, stage of a little action Unit Jus ii luii" time to settle, was enacted :it iiie Magistrate's Court yesterday morning. It was the case of i'miik Matthews, grocer's assistant, of New Plymouth, v. George William Calvert, storekeener, of Strathmore, the hearing </, which had been adjourned for addition- x [ evidence to be called, was proceeded with. Mr. Hutehen appeared for tiff, and Mr. Spence for defendant, i'he claim was for ill, for breaches ot an agreement to employ him, and £2 9s Bd, travelling expenses from > r ow Plymouth to Strathmore. The defence was that plaintiff was drunk wb ( . n he arrived at Strathmore, and that defendant had agreed to employ only a sober, steady man, was set up N Cornelius John Wyllie, until recently a livery stablekeeper v.t Stratford, and proprietor of the Wlia'ngamomona coach from Stratford on. 'the day that the plaintiff travelled 'from Stratford to, Strathmore, said lie travelled by the coach that day. The plaintiff' was soj ber. The, man : had a peculiar stagger[ing gait, but his speech was all right. There were four passengers inside, and one o$ tiicra was drunk. He heard the plaintiff decline to accept a drink from this, man. . Spoke to the plaintiff several times, and on one. occasion Mattnew.s' «iid he was feeling sick with the motion of the coach. At Toko he saw plaintiff have a drink. On top ol the Strathmore Saddle lie suggested to plaintiff that he should ride on top. and the man got up himself. Had he been drunk he would not have advised nim to go on top. He had often been told by .passengers that travelling oa C 6ae!ies Gz t]ii3 Icilic! made litem ill. To Mr. Spence: When the man got oft the coach any lady would have tnought him drunk. If Mrs. Calvert said thei man simelt strongly of liquor lie would! believe her. The'man had had brandy and soda at Toko. The Magistrate, interrupting the crossexamination, said that Mrs. Calvert had been very definite in her evidence that' the man's speech had been -all right. 'Witness, continuing, said he himself, had five or six drinks at Toko, and had some with "Tommy the Dodger." The plaintiff might have had ■more than one drink; hint he only saw the one. Mr. Spence cross'-examined with a view of proving that another passenger handed round drink, but the Magistrate said his decision would not be affected at all by anything that other people dirt. He didn't care if there were five gallons of beer, ten dozen of stout, and a lot of whisky. What he had to determine was whether Matthews was drunk or sober, and this witness had been called to decide the .point. Mr. Spence said he was' entitled to 'show the surrounding circumstances, and to .prove that there were unusual facilities for the plaintiff getting d'runk. Mr. I'i'tziierbcrt and Mr. Spence had a pithy . argument,- in which the Magistrate remarked: "You have a knack of cross-examining, witnesses and making comment all tin* time. I don't. know if it is the practice fn the neighboring district, but we coui'd get through the work a lot more quickly if you merely cross'examined the witness."

Mr. Spence said teat he was compelled! every now and again to make "litthrj speeches" in order to reply to the objections of the Bench to his cross-ex-' amina'tion, and to explain why he was proceeding in that way. The Bench: But jwu have a knack of "making little sp«e*h»" upon receiving each answer from torn witness. You ■ have the knack of doimg it, but perhaps you're not conscious of it. In answer to the Bench, the witness said the plaintiff's condition was the same when he reached Strathmore as when he had -first seen him in Stratford. Seth Backhouse, boardinghouse-keeper at Strathmore, said that the plaintiff stayed at h.s house on the one night that he was i,: strathmore. He appeared to be quite t,ober. Mr. Spence drew His' Worship's attention to the case of Russell v. Leviathan Goldfields Company, the decision given by His Honor Judge Williams that the ■measure of damages for wrongful dismissal of a man engaged on weekly Hire i was a week's wages. There was no authority that he knew for granting travelling expenses in such a case, tinsel further argued that his client t*<i!d rightly have claimed a change of vbwae, for, according to eminent English uiithority which he quoted, the cause ol action arose out of the breach ot the contract (at Strathmore) and not out of the making of the contract at New Plymouth. Mr. Fitzherbert replied that liie cause of action arose partly at New Plymouth. Mr. Spence produced his authority, i)ut His Worship did not note the fact. His Worship reserved his decision till the afternoon, stating that he had made up his mind upon the facts, but wished to consider the measure of damages. In the afternoon His Worship gavel judgment for the plaintiff. He remarked that the onus of proving that the plaintiff was drunk rested with the dafenec, and they had proved only that he Had a peculiar staggering gait. The man's references from his previous employers stated he was a most steady and sober young fellow. Judgment was for £5 damages, £2 !)s Sd travelling expenses, and £6 12s Od costs. Mr. Spence applied for a stay of execution for fourteen days, to allow him to consider the point of making an application for prohibition on account of the Magistrate having admitted fresh evidence for the plaintiff after the case; for both sides had heen closed. His Worship refused the application, saying that the prohibition could not lie, for he had only done what was a usual practice in the Stipendiary Magistrate's Court. And, too, Mr. Spence had already had sufficient time dn which to consider the point, for an adjournment had been granted for a couple of weeks before the evidence was admitted.