A Complicated Case.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 243, 5 January 1889, Page 3

A Complicated Case.

IS HONESTY THE BEST POLICY? The Magistrate’s Court was occupied for some time on Thursday morning in hearing the case Thomas Hayes v. R. J. Reynolds, claim £7 13s 6d for wages due on a contract which the defendant had let to E. Sargent—Mr Macdonald appeared for plaintiff, and Mr DeLautour for the defendant. The case was almost similar to that reported m our issue of the 24th November last under the heading " Workmen’s Wages,”—The plaintiff in his evidence stated that he was indebted to E. Sargent for about £4 for board, which amount he was willing to have deducted from the original claim.—E. Sargeant deposed that he did not owe Hayes the full amount claimed for, but that Hayes had got judgment by default for the amount. —0 D. Bennett stated that he was a loser by the contract to the sum of £l9O. All the accounts that had been presented previous to his settling up with the defendant had been paid.—The defendant presented a statement of accounts from which it appeared be had a balance in hand of £1 Ils 6d, though a dear receipt had been given him.—Mr DeLautour submitted that as the claims had not been sent in previous to the settling up they could therefore not be recognised.—Mr .Macdqnald contended that they were entitled to a judgment as the defendant had first paid himself some £4O odd for meat supplied without seeing that the wages were paid, and that it was also shown there was a balance in hand due on the contract.-—Mr Booth said he would give judgment for £1 lls6d, being the balance in hand, and costs, which amounted to £2 10s.—While judgment was being entered up vfr DeLautour interposed and asked his Worship to order to whom the £1 Ils 61 was to be paid. Some half a dozen notices had been served on his uiieit and under the Ac, they would rank equally. It therefore, judgment was given for the full amount, i. might ba that the other workman would come on Reynolds for a share of the £1 Ils fid.—Mr M icdonaid objected to any alteration b ing made. He thought it should be a case of “first come first served.”—The Magistrate had doub s, and was proceeding to go into the question, when Mr Macdonald said he had got his judgment and would leave the Court.—Mr Booth asked him to wait a moment, but gathering up his hooks be hurriedly left the Court in spite of the Magistrate’s advice to him to stop.—Mr DeLautour then pointed out to the Magistrate what he thought would be the best course to pursue.—Mr Booth thought the best thing he could do was to adjourn the case for a week for the judgment to be properly adjusted*