THE OIL BONUS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 144, 14 December 1911, Page 2

THE OIL BONUS.

JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF. Yesterday morning Mr. H. S. Fitzherbert gave judgment in the case Albert Edward Callow v. Lafayette Keith, evidence in which had been taken the previous day. In giving judgment, the Magistrate said that plaintiff sued for two sums in two causes, viz., £149 3s 6d for his share of the oil won from the bores at Moturoa, and also £SO 12s 6d for drilling the bore at No. 5, less payment of £4O on account, leaving a balance of £159 Ms due. Plaintiff, his Worship said, swore that defendant, who was anxious to get his services, came and saw him with his wife in Lemon street, and engaged him at £0 per week, which was to be increased to £? if the directors could be induced to agree to it. This was not disputed by either side. Plaintiff, however, also swore that after the annual meeting Keith came back and told him he had got £7 per week for him; that he was to get Is per barrel bonus on. oil won, of which he would give plaintiff half. There was on doubt that defendant was anxious to have defendant's services, and offered him every inducement to keep him at work to assist in producing oil. At that time giving haii the oil bonus was really giving nothing, as the wells were producing nothing. However that may be, plaintiff did agree. Plaintiff denied this, but called no evidence in corroboration. If the evidence of both parties were uncorroborated, he would have no other option but to non-suit, as there would be nothing to guide as to which party was truthful. In this case, however, the plaintiff adduced considerable outside evidence. First, his wife's evidence supported plaintiff, and, though minutely crossexamined, remained unshaken. Mr. Tribe's evidence was also inferential to the extent that Keith admitted to him that he had to pay plaintiff something. Defendant's evidence was not satisfactory, particularly regarding his agreement with the company. Judgment would be given for plaintiff on this cause for the amount claimed, £149 3s Cd. The next item was a claim for £SO 12s 6d, being 6d per foot on 2025 ft bored at No. 5. Here, again, plaintiff's evidence was supported by his wif«, and also by an independent witness, James' Wilson, to whom defendant stated that lie, personally, not the company, had paid Callow 6d per foot. It was also extraordinary that Mr. Keith should attempt to get away from the receipt, which distinctly stated that the sum of £4O was paid on account of boring at fid per foot, agreed to be paid by defendant to plaintiff on boring at No. 5. Defendant tried to explain this away by «aying th.it Callow wanted money, and lie advanced him £4O. This, however, was inconsistent with the receipt, which, moreover, had been drawn up at Keith's dictation by an independent witness, and not by Callow. The Magistrate held that in this ease also the weight of evidence was in favor of plaintiff, and gave judgment for the amount claimed. Judgment was accordingly entered up for plaintiff for £159 10s, with costs £l2 ss.