DISTRICT COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3552, 3 July 1890, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

(Before His Honor;; District .Juclge 'Bobinsoiii)'',,'.'":.''.' ' i :

knight v.BABBKR. (Continued.; I). Knight, cross-examined by M Skerrett: Was living in Featberstoi when I first met Mr Barber. Owe about 125 then. Was in gooi employment.' Mrs Knight did noi as far as my knowledge' went, .writ to Barber for' assistance.' My boi was about fifteen the time we let Featherston. Alfred, the youngei son, was about thirteen. Mr Barbe bad asked me if I would go up am work a place at Pabiatua for him If at any. time I found suffioien money to buy:tbe. place, I was ti have it, • Barber said he would pa; wages to me and my two boys, iron the time we went on to the place There was no amount mentioned I trusted him asmy brother-in-law Supplied myself for the first eigh months. Did not expect to gel my wages in the same regulai way as other - managers, did; because Mr Barber was not 'in t position to lay out much money Expected arrangement to continue as long as I was on the: place, Expected to get money when I wantec it. Mr Barber did not say to me," 1 bear you are in poor circumstanoes.' But he said he would stock the place for 'ine, and ps to advance moiiej forth? improvements; to get wages if I did.not'get-the property. .The Court"theif|djour'ned for lunch.. ' V-.^' v On resuming at 2. o'clock, Mi Skerrett continued his croBS-examina-tion. First niado Application foi wages in September. Asked for the amount, which was altogether about £32, Said I was rather short, Asked for the money because it was due. Expeotedto receive it. Had suggested to Mr Barber the purchase of Mr Wardell's lease. 1 was to mauage on the same, terms as before. I did get Borne wageß. If I had wanted or required money I should have applied for money to Barber. While on tlie place did not require money, so had not asked for it. Did not again apply for the £82,1 had asked Barber for while managing Best's lease, because I trusted Barber. Did not thiuk it extraordinary for a wages man to suggest to his master the purchase of a property. Went to Wellington prior to the purchase of Wardell's property, It was ' arranged that I should manage on tho same terms as on Best's, Best's contained 400 or 500 acres. Wardell's was about 1000 acres in extent. Nothing was said about the land being settled on my wife. I'was purely and simply a wages hand. Tried to make the place pay for itself, and did not wish to draw too heavily on defendant, Had not applied for wages for ten months because I did not require 1 any.. Never had thirty cows in milk. - The greatest. amount of butter I 1 had made in one week was from 1 ninety to a hundred pounds. Had not asked up till the end of June ! 1887, for money, because I did not ■ want any.. Mr Barber always > pleaded that he bad no money. The ' expenditure on the property was I tolerably heavy. Remembered | money being sent to me to pay busbfallers, but do not remember having appropriated any of it. The I dairy bslonged to Mr Barber, but I I never sent any cash for produce, In • October, 1889, was making 150 lbs of i butter per week for Mr Barber, t Defendant had expended £836419s Gd on the property, but he would i never pay mo wages. The pro- ' pertywaß sold over my head, .Never ■ made an offer to defendant for the ■ land. If '1 had bought the property ; for £IBOOI should have been satisfied, ! Mr Barber sold the property for I £2500 to Messrs F It Jackson & Co, but a term of the sale was that, if I could raise £IBOO in three months I should have the option of buying it. i Asked Barber for money after the i property was sold. The first account i I sent was in a lawyer's letter.. Filed I my schedule in 1884, and was disi charged about twelve months afterwards,

By Mr Tosswill: The books produced show what became of (he butter made on the phce. MY Barber paid old debts amounting to £2l, This was not credited in bill of particulars,

Arthur Knight, son of plaintiff, deposed that he knew defendant, and heard the arrangement made with him in January, 1886. His evidcuce corroborated that of the former witness,

By Mr Skerrott; Remember most of the conversation which took place between defendant and my father at Featherston. Nothing was said about wages.

Alfred Knight, another son ol plaintiff, corroborated the evidence ol the former witnesses.

Edward Bauokio gays evidence to having seen Knight working on the place during 1887 and I 'IBBB. Ho appeared to be a'first class workman, and was always working' hard when he visited the property. This was the oase for the plaintiff. E. W. Dwret, accountantbookkeeper, deposed to having been in the employ of Barber in 1883. Bad no conversation with Knight respecting the terms of his engagement on Best's property. Heard tho conversation between Knight and Barber with reference to Warden's estate. Knight was to manage the estate in Barber's behalf. Ho was to dear it and fenoe it, and defendant was to stock it. Barber was to have all the wool, hides, etc., and Knight was to have the dairy produce. Barber had to pay all disbursements. An arrangement was made that if at anytime Kmghtcould clear.the disbursements on tho property the latter was to be made over to Mrs Knight, : No agreement whatever was made to pay wages. Had several'conversations with Knight on. the matter. Had never heard of a. demand for wages, His stook account,; compared with the amount delivered at the sale of F. R. Jackson and Co., showed a considerable number short. By Mr Tosswill: The first conversation held with Knight was after the ostate of Wardell' had been purchased. Had conversations with Barber, about the matter. The arrangement was that Knight wanted a home for his family and Mr Barber placed him on this land in order that he might acquire that home, after consulting Knight upon tho question pf whether by advanoing £2OO .or. £3OO tbeaffair could be made to pay. Knight replied that <he thought \ it could.: TWb was all of the arrange, menfc. Stores- were Bent up by Barber. I Left Mr Barber in 1889.' Was discharged;by Barber because there! was "a discrepancy in,his account?. , './•""': ■,.,;""' By.'Mr.Sk'evrett: Haye heard of other',people iyhp rja'vp 'hadlswre?' pancies in.theiraccbunts. : - '" "' By' tl|q Bench:ThW;wa3.no written account sent in to bliow what the increases had been. S Atlis stage (be. Court adjourned,

THURSDAY. I • Edward Barber, defendant, sworn, stuted lie was " brotber-in-law to plaintiff. Eeceived a letter from bis sister who was.living in leatlierston. Wont up an her request to see Knight, who bad been out of work for six months. Told him that he put him on,a piece of land in the!bush. Saw him'afterwards at Petoiie, Mid told him they oould get the property if they liked" and he ! could go on it. Arranged to advance plaintiff £SO, to put him m possession of thi> property, and to pay therent, on condition that he pay the bank rate of interest. ' If the laud was cleared the plaintiff should have it. V Did not employ Knight as manager, neither did he offer him wages. Heldltat'a property temporarily,' only. At Knight's suggestion agreed to buy the lease of Wardnll's property.. Saw plaintiff in Wollington, : who said the property was much better than the other. An agreement was made that Knight should go;on to the property as manager. Knight wanted.to form a dairy on a large scale,'and agreed therefore to purchase fitook. Was to' have beef, mutton and wool, and plaintiff, was -to live on the dairy • produce.' Kept an open account, and when the credits exceeded tlio amount of the expenditure the property was to be handed over to the plaintiff's family. Knight never', demanded wages from him. Never, to his knowledge, received an . account for £B2. Prior to selling" the property desired an advance upon it of £ISOO. Saw Mr Knight about this tine, who said he thought he could get i'lsoo on tin property, aad wanted, it himself. Allowed him a month in which to get the money. Subsequently disposed of the property to F, B, Jaokson & Co for £2BOO on conditions that Kuight have the option of pre-emption for six months at £IBOO.. First heard of a clnim for wages after the property was sold by receiving a letter from Mr Tosswill. At the request of Mr Jackson saw Mr Joseph Knight. Mrs' Knight said she "would not allow her. husband to advance the money. Did not interfere to prevent the money being advanced. Saw Daniel Knight afterwards, who did not ask for wages, but said lie thought ho was entitled to something, Refused to have anything to do with the matter, and losing his temper told plaintiff to "Go to—." Instead of that plaintiff went to Mr Tosswill, and the present action resulted.

by Mr Tosswill:. Knight got great benofits through a slaughterhouse being erected on the property. Did not get any pigs from the estate, The property was made over to F.R. Jaokson and Co,, for' £2500, and f therefore made a profit of £429, Through the interference ot Knight the property was not sold in the first instance'. The arrangement was that stores Bhould be sent up to ' Knight; and the coat of such debited against the estate. Knight was to : • receive the profits from the cows, '& E Barber was cross-examined a ' V' considerable lentil by Mr Tosswill, ' Plaintiff was then re-called and gave evidence as to the quantity of stock on the property. He also •■' accounted for the defioienoy in the stock.

Mr filterrett then addressed the | jury on behalf of defendant. Wages for labour could not.he contended, be recovered in a court of law unless an expressed contract was made for 1 wages. The jury had to decide ~ whether - they - would accept the \m statement of plaintiff or defendant. '''"-'■ Mr Tosswill having addressed the. jury at some length, His Honor briefly summed up. The • jury returned a verdict for defendanUita costs £2617s Id; ;