SUPREME COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1829, 15 December 1888, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

Timaru—December 13,1888. (Before His Honor Judge Ward). Edward Pilbrow v. John Hayhurst— Claim £453 0a 2d. Mr Stringer appeared for the plaintiff, and Sir Robert Stout (with him Mr Cecil Perry) for the defendant. The following special jury of four were sworn, viz.: W. Grant (foreman), M. B. Brown, E. Clissold, and H. F. Fendall. Mr Stringer, after having read the pleadings, stated the case for the plaintiff. He said the issue was very simple. Mr Pilbrow was employed for some years as steward and manager for Mr Hayburst, and in the latter's absence held a power of attorney to transact all his business, till in 1879 he was discharged on the plea of retrenchment. During all this time Mr Pilbrow was paid 5 per cent, commission on all the moneys that passed through his hands. From J 879 to 1884 the estate was managed by Mr J. T. M. Hayhurst, who held a power of attorney from his father. In the latter ye<»r Mr Hayhurst, junr., asked Mr Pilbrow to resume his old position. Mr Pilbrow did so, and said he presumed it would be on the same terms as before, He afterwards anked Mr Hayhurst, juar., to give him a fixed anuual salary, but he replied that it would be time enough after he returned from America. During his absence in America Mr Pilbrow held a power of attorney to transact business, and when Mr Hayhurst, junr., returned he still retainfid Mr Pilbrow in his position until 1887, when ho was discharged on the plea of retrenchment, and the amount sued for remained due to him. Mr Pilbrow then sent in his claim, but the defendant refused to pay it. The plea of the defence was that Mr Pilbrow was engaged as an accountant, and that no remuneration was agrepd upon. He called Edward Pilbrow, who deposed: I am plaintiff in this action. I have been in the employment of John Hayhurst. I entered his employment in 1872. Con-

tinued in the position until 1879. [Letter dated March 24, 1879, staling that for the purposes of retrenchment he would transfer to J. T. M. Hayhurst the management of the estate]. The salary was 5 per cent on all moneys which passed throagh the books. Was paid this. My duties were to collect rent, to see that lease's were properly curried out, to supervise the whole estate, and in the absence of Mr

Hayhusst to pay all accounts. Assisted Mr Hayhurst, junr., in getting into the way of things. [Account book put in]. Received the commission by cheque from Mr Hayhurst, but when Mr Hayhurst was absent drew it myself. Prior to M.irch, 1814, Mr Hayhurst was absent, and Mr HayLurst, jun., held a power of attorney. In March, 1884, Mr J. T. M. Hayhurst said he had got into great confusion with the books, and asked uae to resume my old duties. I consented, and sajd I preRumed it would be on the same terras as before. He consented to that. I made a proposal to him to pay me an annual salary, and he said it would be quite time enough when be returned from America. After returning from America be made no fresh arrangements. He was away about throe or four months, afld I acted as deputy attorney for him. I continued in his employment until Oct. 1, 1887, when I got a letter stating that my services would be dispensed with on account of retrenchment. I made up my aocount and sent it in, accompanied by a letter demanding the books to be audited, and demanding, the commission due to me. [Letter put io.] To this I received a reply refusing to acknowledge the account. The second time my duties were more arduous, because Mr Hayhurst, junr., acting as his fathers attorney, was making things very confused by receiving moneys and not accounting for them. There were two farms in the hands of Mr Hayhurst. I had to keep the accounts of them more than before. Before there was nothing to do with these except taking the rent. Mr Hayhurst has over thirty tenants, . and I had often to visit them. I had to keep my own horse. I did a little commission besides the work. Mr Hayhurst wished to have the private office at Green Hayes to himself, and I had to rent an office in Temuka. I claim commission on all moneys paid into Mr Hayhurst s credit in the bauk by rents from tenants, and by proceeds from a farm which Mr Hayhurst h?U himself.

[At this stage Judge Ward, having been taken suddenly ill, had to leave the Bench, and the case was adjourned till two o clock. At that time it was further adjourned until 10.30 a.m. on the following day as the judge was still too unwell to take his seat. Yesterday the Court was adjourned until Tuesday next.]

At the Supreme Court, Auckland, on Thursday, Mrs Davies, for unlawfully wounding her husband at the Thames, was sentenced to three months' imprisonment.

At Blenheim on Thursday, Edwin Baldick was sentenced to six months imprisonment for unlawfully wounding his brother, who was ejecting him from the house.

At Invercargill on Thursday, Elizabeth Charlotte Allen, alias Phemister, alias See Que, who has been living with a Chinaman at Round Hill, was charged at the Supreme Court with the manslaughter of her infant child. Accused drank, and frequently left the child for long intervals without food. The medical evidence showed that death resulted from starvation. A verdict of guilty wbb found, and a sentence of tour years passed upon her. Radka, charged with arson, was acquitted. The verdict was received with applause. Mr J. S. Finn, counsel for the prisoner, vehemently denounced the action of the gaoler, Bratby, in having Radka brought up that morning at the. Police Court (where he was sentenced to four months' for gaol breaking), without apprising him (counsel) that he would do bo. He said he would see further into the matter. Alex. McKeuzie, charged with arson, was acquitted.