Friday, 10th July.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VII, Issue 372, 11 July 1874, Page 3

Friday, 10th July.

, (Before .E. H. Carew,. Epq.,.E.M.), Harrohin v. Yeendflnd Pope. — His Worship gave the following judgment in thiscase :— Respecting the first two weeks wages, the defendants admit" 'the o'rigiilal 'liability, but have giveu evidence with the view of showing that the wages -have- 'Been -paid in full for that time. With regard to the employment at" the Dunßta'n, 'the defendants deny any liability, and they admit the? claim for employment at the Beaumont. As to ,the liability forthe'employroent afc' the Dunstan, the plaintiff's evidence is that his> first engagement was made (by Yeend and one Kingsland,' who .acted, together in engaging his services, and - that subsequently he. received ' orders . BOmetimes from one . and sometimes from the other.- That by Yeend's instructions, ho -went to. the Dunstan to look after the coach horses there, and that on the road up Kingaland agreed with him that he was to be paid 30s. a .week, and to- be found, and that he was ordered by 'Kingsland to put up at the hotel ;were the coach horses were stabled. His evidence goes to* show that while at tho Dunstan he acted under the- orders of Kings-land,-believing, him to be one of a firm wifch' the present.defendants, andhe givesas reasons for this belief that Kingsland acted in concert with Yeend. in giving him employment, gave • him prderson masters-respecting theyworking ' of l the' coaches, 1 and that 'Kingsland' sj name appeared on a coach in conjuction with those .of the ( defendants as joint proprietors. For ,the defence a partnership has been denied, ' but one of the. defendants says that a partriership' was contemplated with Kingsland at" th'e v time plaintiff was first engage'}, but; wag never* actually completed, and that about the time plaintiff was engaged at the Beaumont it was decided tnat Kingslond was not .to be a partner, and his name was then at once removed fi'Oin, the. coaah. It appears to me that up to this time the acts of the defendants . were sufficient to hold Kingsland forth as a partner with them, and that Kingsland had represented himself as a partner, and had ' assumed the controt of the defendant's' business at Clyde. The single act of defendants causing, or allowing Kingsland's name to appear on the' coach along with their awn as proprietors , was in: (itself very strongly holding .him • forth *to ,the , world as their partner, and, combined with their other acts, placed him in a very strong position to' appear as a partner, and to pledge thseir.. credit' in. ordinar business, of coach proprietors on- that; particular, line. ! I must therefore, hold that defendants are .liable for, the employment at the Dunstan, and fpr the itenj of, board. The eyjdence is very conflicting in respect of the amount of money t widen has' been paid to plaintiff on account- "of his services; bu£; £]pjpfciff'Bt.' t *videnc«e isyjnore,' favorable for

defendant^ jthau^theiro^vn, and they cannot 'bb'jeCT to' the' advantage'- if gives them.. Judgment for £21 2s. 6d. ; costs of Courtj ' £1 55. ; pr6feslioiial dosts, 21s. ffl(T, /ITecirs aw^WiiMet.— Judgment was also givon in tbis case as follows : — The plaintiff has proved that helms' a eo'ntract to construct a bridge for the Corporation of Lawrence, and that for the pm-poae of carrying out this contract, be constructed an embankment to divert the' water of Wetherstones Creek away from tha, works. The defendants appear to be carrying out another contract to construct 'a retaining' wall for 'certain landowners ■ in ' EosS Place ;" and evidence shews that one of their laborers, at the beginning of this month, dug away and removed a quantity of^earth from the Avail of the embankment, and xiscd the earth removed in the construction of the retaining wall. The result of removing this earth was that the embankment was weakened, and the plaintiff's worksbecame flooded/ and be had to incur certain costs in repairing the damage. No evidence has been given for the , defence ; but it has been argued that defendants were the first to commence their contract, and that they were , delayed . by the length of time the embankment was kept standing, and that what they did was necessary" to' allow them to complete their contract. I cannot see that this argument shows any good defence. • The plaintiff was in occupation, and it has been proved that the embankment; was, necessary to allow him to construct the bridge for the-Corpora-tion, and therefore he.had their implied consent'td'form aiid'k'eep it there. The defendants, on the other hand, had no consent of • the Corporation, and were clearly wrongdoers. It has been sought to show that the damage 1 was' maliciously- done ; but the evidence has failed to prove it, and I think it was done under U mistaken .belief th&t their acts were justified. Judgment for "plaintiff for £2 55.; costs' of Court, 16s.j witnesses, 15s ; ,and professional costs, 215.,