R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume VI, Issue 1865, 15 December 1884, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MSBIEKTOH, -MONDAY,

(Before' H; S. R,M.,) L, J.Hooper & Co.v. ;W, Neary,— Debt ;£5 Is Id. Judgment for amount and'costs. W. Taylor v. T. Mackay.—£3llos, 15 weeks wages for Tenui Toll Gate. £ls 16s paid into Court but declined, Mr Skipper "for plaintiff, and Mr Beard for defendant.

The plaintiff deposed that prior to October 1882 he was employed by the Castlepoint Road Board. He had previously held a lease of the toll gate for a period of two years. After the

lease expired he held the gate' as a servant of the Board. Letter produced authorising him to collect tolls on behalf of the Board (dated 24th Oot.) was in Mr McHutchon's writing; : He collected 1 the tolls for fifteen weeks and handed the proceeds to Mr McHutchon, He applied to tho Board for payment at the rate of six shillings a day. The Board in reply declined to pay this oharge as they had decided to pay only a pound a week for collecting the tolls, Had refused to take the sum tendered by the Court. The Court: Tho money has been in the hands of the Court for over a year,

In cross-examination witness said he was under the impression that he would receive half the buit he collected. He was a bootmakei and was able to carry on the gate and his trade

simultaneously. ..While collecting for the Board he received £33 9s in cash, and booked £25 Bs. Mr McHutchon authorised him to use his discretion as to trusting people. He let people he. knew pass without demanding the money. He made out accounts against the people but Mr. McHutchon took

them from him and said he would collect them himself. The amount he sued for was more than half the pro-

ooeds,' bufc he was advised to sue for

wages, J.7;W. Lang deposed that he had kept the Te Ore Ore toll gate for three fears. He considered two pounds a week a fair sum for keeping agate, A. toll keeper had to put up with any amount of cheek and abuse. To Mr Beard: I have been told that I was a highway.robber (a laugh). The Court f Itpossible to delegate your powers to a son? ' Witness.:' Yes; A McHutchon, Olerk to. the Castlepoint Board, called for the defence, stated.that he .did not authorise Taylor to s give credit at the toll.'-' Nothing was said about credit. On February 4 witness went Mr Mackay'to see Taylor about;grang utp i g e ' toll. . Taylor was dissatisfied with his' position; "'Taylor aßked witness to pay him for-collecting before' giving.up the tolls, y "-Witness replied-that , the Board would pay him by .' a cheque. He did not take the .collection -pf the: outstanding-accounts out of hands of Taylor. He considered a pound a week was a fair payment for a tradesman collecting the tolls. Witness had no reason to complain of the way Taylor did hia work. He had not demanded the debts due.to the toll 1 gate.. He . worild not care to the gate himself at £2 a week. ' i io the Court! When the gati was first opened .they let Mr Wills-have it: for three months for half of the pro--ceeds. Mrs Stelling occupied the toll-' house for a short time on a similar, arrangement, : Witnesa knew that' Taylor wis in the habit of giving credit 1 at the toll. Thomas Mackay, Chairman; of the Cashpoint Highway Board,. stated with Mr Macara,- he authorised Mi' Taylor being employed to collect the tolls, He considered a pound a week was a fair payment for. Taylor's services, Mr Stamford had a lease of the toll.tiubsequently, and received a bonus of £SO to surrender his lease. The County paid this sum, The Court held that the plaintiff, was entitled to one half of the proceeds of the toll during tho period of occupa. tion, also that tho credit syßtem was used .with the knowledge and consent of the defendant. The Court suggested that the plaintifl should collect the accpuuts and then settle with the Roai Board.

• Plaintiff oxpressad his willingness to •take this course if the Court wrote it dovvn. He hud not a very high .opinion of tlifi Board. Judgment fo.r £2912s 3d and. costs, less amount paid into Court, Jesse Herbert v. Alfred Goodyear, —-Claiin £4 3s 4d,- ■ Amour t received by .defendant in excess of wages, Mr Beard for Defendant said his client admitted having received the amount k excess of his due, but he had returned to Mr Herbert and told liitn that there was a mistake in the cheque, and plaintiff told him to clear out. Defendant had since spent the money, but was willing to repay the amount by instalments, provided he was not charged the fees for the summons or judgment. . His- Worship gave. judgment for plaintiff for the amount without costs, £1 being paid into Court on'account, Robert Robinson v The Mayor, Councillors, and Burgesses of the Borough of Master ton—Cl ai m £2O. Mr Beard for plain tiff, Mr Bunny for defendant. , ;

■Mr Beard said tho plaintiff was owner .of a certain horse, which got out of his premises through no fault of his own, and was afterwards fouod.in the Masterton pound, but not by plaintiff. (At this stage witnesses in the case were ordered out of Court.) The horse had been sold in a negligent manner by the servant of the Council, and this was acknowledged by the Council by the action they took in dismissing die poundkeeper, and he submitted tho Council was liable -to the defendant for tho damage sustained by the negligence of their servant, 3

Kichard Brown, Town Clerk, sworn, produced the minute book containing the appointment of Mr 11. Bentley on February Htb, 1882, at £25 per annum. The minute of his dismissal dated 18th December, 1883, was alsohanded in. The reason of the dismissal waß the result of the pound enquiry, .tlie. minutes of wfcicn were handed in to Court. . • "' .

Robert Robinson depoaed ha was plaintiff in the actiop. ,' He wag pos* sessed'of a; horse valtied ati?o,••'wbieh got out of his paddock. ■ He advertised the horse, and afterwards learnt that itwas sold in the Masterton pound. •. '■Ho saw the horse after "the pound sale in Mr Cookery's possession. The horse was a bay, light draught horse, not branded,

By Mr Bunny, He Lad given a correct description of the horsa, "The torse belonged to Mr Wm, Payne who left it with him to work and break in. It was never his (witness) property and is not now.- He searched for the horse when it was lost and advertised for it, He wrote to Mr Payne about the horse but got the letter back through the dead letter office, (Mr Beard said Mr Payne was supposed to be iti Australia.) Mr Bunny intimated' to the Court that s his line of action would be to show that plaintiff was at all events premature in making the claim, action, not having been forced upon him by the owner. ' .

Witness continued, the first time he heard of the horse being impounded and sold was on the Sunday succeeding the sale. His delay in bringing the action was caused by his waiting to get authority Irom Mr Payne. He had never applied to get possession of the horse from the party who had got it. He advertised its being lost iu the Daily, because he considered that the

most likely paper, ( He did not look in the Star as he was under the' impression that, the pound advertising was done in the Daily, He. put a value of ilO on the horse sn he had worked it

and found it a very valuable horse ai}d worth that money, He had not been instructed by Mr Payne to sue for the value of the horse, Mr has instructed Mr Sellar about the horse. He had not applied to the Council nor the pound keeper for the proceeds of the Bale of the horse. He had applied to Mr Bentley for the. value of the horse, £2O, but did not get it

Ole Christiansen deposed to attending a certain sale, Mr Bunny at this stage submitted that upon the evidence plaintiff was not the party to sue and the case must fail.

Mr Beard said he .intended to prove that his client havMg had the horse in his possession was' entitled to sue, he 'also having been ''threatened by Mr Payne with, proceedings. Mr Bunny submitted that plaintiff was only liable to the baillor as baillee if negligence was shown to have been committed, and theiflwner was the only one'entitled, to sue. Ik was admitted oa- side that no. •negligenceiad bMiused .on plaintiff's part. --r - • • .

Mr Beard submitted plaintififwas: trustee fQr,the owner and fullyvejlted •with all powers to. obtain recovery- of: the horse parties. » " Mr Bunny said the proper course, fpr. .wsdl3 have been to. have brought' an action,for the recovery;^e,lii>rse frpifetha purchaser on. the: grounti. pf its beipg:;a&' .unlawful sale, plaintiff must sho\y that he is liable to. the owner for the £2o'he claims before jhe can recover as trustee.- • ; ■ Mr Beard stated he would be pre* p?red to show, that the plaintiff had 10 authority or sanction of the owner, or his'agent to institute these proceedings. ; .

That being the case the Court decided to heur further evidence!

(Left Sitting.)