SUPREME COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 2764, 19 March 1910, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL CASES. FOSTER v. T'R,Ui!2EES OF AVI FERE t ESTATE. • • ■ The half-yearly sitting of the Supreme 'Court was continued yesterday, before liis -Honor Mr. Justice Cooper. The first case was that of John Edward Foster (Mr. G; Stock) v. H. C. Jackson and H. to Kani Fere, trustees Wi Fere Estate (Mr. AV. L. Rees), claim for balance 0 f salary in lien of reasonable notice. Counisel for the plaintiff, in outlining the case, said the facts were that in IS9S the AVi Pere lands, in this district, were transferred to the Commissioner of Crown Lands, in trust. The Commissioner on 27th May, 1898, employed the plaintiff as manager, for a period of at least three years. The agreement set out that unless the next session of Parliament passed an Act dealing with the estate, the remuneration, until after the rising of the session, should be £250 per annum, ibut if no such, legislation took place during the session, I from then on to the end of the period •the remuneration- should be £3OO, payable quarterly. The legislation did not take place, and plaintiff was paid £3OO per annum. In 1809 the Commissioner retired from the trust, and AValtor George Fester, brother of the plaintiff, became a trustee, and lie adopted the agreement between the plaintiff and the Commissioner, and the agreement continued for the three years, and then until terminated by the defendants, by the supersession of the plaintiff on the 14th April, 1909, and by written notice dated April 28th, 1909. By an. Order-in-Council, dated 9th January, 1909, AA r alter George Poster was removed from the trusteeship, and the present defendants were appointed. Salary was claimed from, 28th February, 1909, to 27th. May, 1909, £75, and damages in lieu of sufficient notice of termination of services, being one year’s salary, from 27th May 1909, £3OO, making a total 0 f £376.

'Counsel for the defence contended that reasonable notice had been given. He pointed out that when W. G. Foster assumed trusteeshsip he made no contract with the plaintiff The original contract was for three years, and it was implied that if the year eoirrirmenced it should be completed. The three years having expired, there was nothing to show that the hire was * yearly one, and throe .months was quite reasonable notice. Plaintiff had full knowledge that his services would no: be retained when new trustees were appointed, and the principal element on which damages could be given was that the plaintiff was surprised and his employment taken;. For two years it must have been in the plaintiff’s mind that his services would be dispensed with. His Honor thought that when the trustees assumed office they should have given reasonable notice. They did not do this. Continuing Mr. Rees said the trustees considered a month’s salary over the expiration of the current year was reasonable. No evidence was called, and this con. eluded the care. His Honor sjiid that if ha had to determine it on a question of law he would have to look up authorities. If if was a question of reasonable notice, he did not think .this had been given, and if ho assessed reasonable damage it would be £SO, in. addition to the £75. If Mr. Stock would take £125 he would assess it at once, with costs. Mr._ Stock agreeing to- this judgment was given for £125, with costs on that scale. TOCKNELL V. TRUSTEES VOLUNTEER DRILLSHED. Mention was made of the case of Tcc’knell v. the Trustees of the Gisborne Volunteer Drillshed, claim for balance of contract. Mr. Rees said he understood the Go_ vernment- were forwarding the money, which would probably arrive this morning. On his suggestion, agreed to hv Mr. Coleman, the case was allowed to stand down till this morning. A TRUSTEE’S REMUNERATION. The matter between W. L. Rees and Thomas Alexander Coleman, over the East Coast Native Trust Land Act and the Kopua estate, being a summons to defendant for order of payment to plaintiff of the sum of £3O, agreed on his remuneration for services as tmstee from 1.878 to 1903, was called on. Mr. W. L. Rees appeared in person, and Mr. Coleman was represented by Mr. T. Alston Coleman. His Honor was of opinion that Wi Pere should be present, and fixed the hearing for Tuesday, directing that Wi Pere should be served with a summons notifying him of the hearing. IN BANCO. JOBSON (Appellant) V. WHEELER (Respondent). William Jobson, appellant (Mr. W. L. Rees) v. Gertrude Wheeler, respondent (Air. L. T. Burnard), being an appeal from the decision of the Magistrate's Court, Gisborne. In the case before the Magistrate Nurse "Wheeler claimed £23 9s Gd from William Jobson, sheepfarmer, for attendance upon his wife in May, 1909, and for £3 3s per week for a period of seven weeks and three, days. The wife of the defendant, before the Magistrate, gave evidence that she was married in 1903. Before the first child was born her husband and she came to an agreement not to live together. As she had no means she applied, under the Destitute . Persons Act, for the maintenance of herself and child, and an order was.made, by consent, for the payment of £1 per week, 13s for herself and 7s for the child. Two children were subsequently born, and in 1908 an order was made by the Court for the payment of the sum of 10s for each child, making £2 in all. In January of last year, acting on the doctor’s advice, she underwent an operation, and was put to considerable _ expense. _The Magistrate, after considering the case, came to the decision that orders having been made under the Destitute Persons Act for the maintenance of the wife and children, did not preclude a wife from pledging her husband’s credit for medical expenses necessarily incurred by her. Judgment was accordingly given for the plaintiff in that case, Nurse Wheeler, for the amount claimed. Mr. Rees, in commencing the case, said it opened the question as to a husband’s liability to his wife. It was a question of principle, for if the. husband was liable in this case, he was' liable in every case. He submitted that the. Magistrate's decision was wrong, because he could not define between this and other cases. It was necessary tor the wife to obtain an order from her husband before he became liable. Airs Jobson -proceeded against the appellant under the Destitute Persons Act, and the Alagistrate could not make an order for more than £1 for each, person. Under the Divorce Act the. Alagistrate could have fixed an. amount that he .considered adequate for her maintenance, based on the husband’s position.

There.are some long faces amongst farmers as a- result of the turnip crops (says the Stratford correspondent of the “Taranaki Herald”). The warm, moist summer has, it seems, been specially favorable to the organism that produces blight, and it. is feared that the crop will be a failure. This means sale or starvation of dairy stock this coming winter.