RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1847, 31 January 1889, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Geraldine—Tuesdat, Jan. 29, 3889. i (Before E. H. Pearpoint and H. W. 1 Moore, Esq's., J.P.'s. r CIVIL CASES. T. Maloney v. D. G-regan and C. E. '• Sherratt—-Claim £l9 16s for wages j due. t Mr F. Wilson Smith appeared, for > plaintiff, and Mr J. Hay for defendant 1 Gregan only. j Defendants were contractors for the , construction of the Seadown waterj race, Gregan being a working partner, - while Sherratt was not s®. : Plaintiff stated that he had been \ engaged by Sherratt to work on the j Seadown water-race contract. He was t to represent Sherratt on the work, as Sherratt was not working on the job. j Plaintiff was to be paid 6s per day. • The cost of his tucker was to be de- ; ducted from that, but witness did not , know how much the latter amounted , to. Witness worked the same as the other men, and always gave them to 1 understand that he represented ' Sherratt, and had nothing to do with , G-regan. C. E. Sherratt, sworn, deposed that he employed Maloney, and told him that the firm would pay him. He accused Gregan of having virtually thrown the contract away by wasting his time and not attending to the work. Owing to this he expected G-regan to pay Maloney. Would see that in any case plaintiff got his money. This was the plaintiff's case. Daniel G-regan deposed that when he and Sherratt took the contract Sherratt was, in accordance with the usual custom when one partner could , not work on a |job, to send a man to ' represent him. Maloney was sent for that purpose, and witness belived that Sherratt was to pay him out of surplus money. Had nothing to do with Maloney's time. He could work just as he liked, aa he was Sherratt's man. If there were any funds when the work was finished an order from Sherratt would be honored as far as his share would allow. The tuckering would coat about 8s or 9s per week at the least. Never promised to pay plaintiff. He said he would see him paid if there was anything left. When plaintiff asked witness to pay him, said he would pay Sherratt and he could pay plaintiff. To Mr Wilson Smith: Plaintiff told me once not to pay the money to | Sherratt, but pay him. Could not say how much would be realised from the job. Sherratt came down to the work, and told Maloney not to do what witness told him, but what he (Sherratt) told him. M. Scannell, a hotelkeeper a t Arowhenua, deposed to having a. conversation with plaintiff as to his employment upon the Work, when Maloney told witness ihat Sherratt had employed him; an d was to pay him. The conversation took place in the hotel, Also heard a conversation between G-regan and Maloney, when Gregan said if Maloney would leave i: Sherratt's employ and come and work I'

for him he would give him a shilling a day more.

To Mr Wilson Smith: Kemembered ■•• a conversation between Maloney and Gregan, when Maloney wanted to get some money, stating that he could never get any. Gregan offered to lend him some. The conversations gonerally turned upon plaintiff not being able to get his wages. Plaintiff once asked Gregan if he would honor an order of Sherratt's, when Gregan refused, stating, he got nothing out of the job until it was finished. Malonjey was always complaining that not get his money. Said he wss sent there by Sherratt and he or Gregan would soon be boss. Gregan boarded with witness, and sometimes spent money at his house. Still owed him about £3. To the Bench: It was early in the contract that the conversation took place, but witaesß could not fix the date. This was the case. Mr Hay, addressing the Bench, said the single question was, who the contract was made with, the partnership or Sherratt. He contended that the plaintiff's evidence alone was enough to show it was with Sherratt, and Sherratt's evidence also bore out the same thing. There was no doubt about the matter. Maloney was to represent Sherratt on the works, and was to work as against Gregan. If there was a loss Gregan was to lose/ his work, while Sherratt had to loso\ the money he had to pay Matoney. He asked for judgment againiwHlefendant Sherratt only. Mr Smith contended that Maloney was employed by Sherratt as a member of the partnership, and expected to be paid by the firm. He contended that although Maloney had stated he was representing Sherratt, he was still but an ordinary laborer for the firm, and worked the same as the ether men- He asked for judgment for the full amount against both the defendants. Their "Worships said they were unanimous in giving their judgment. They considered the agreement with plaintiff was that he was to go on the work on behalf of Mr Sherratt, and was to be paid by him. They considered plaintiff's own evidence bore this out. Judgment was given for defendant Gregan without costs, and against defendant Sherratt with costs, The Court then rose.