The Gisborne Standard AND COOK COUNTY GAZETTE Published Every Tuesday, Thursday, AND Saturday Morning Saturday, January 5, 1889. A TAX UPON HONESTY.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 243, 5 January 1889, Page 2

The Gisborne Standard AND COOK COUNTY GAZETTE Published Every Tuesday, Thursday, AND Saturday Morning

Saturday, January 5, 1889. A TAX UPON HONESTY.

Be just and fear not; Let all the ends thou aim’st at be thy country’fl, Thy God’s, and truth’s.

The case of Hayes v. Reynolds, heard on Thursday last, calls for some comment from us. It may be necessary to premise that the plaintiff was one of Sargent’s workmen, whose case we referred to some time back. Hayes, however, did not take proceedings at the same time as the other workmen, and his case therefore stands upon a different footing to what theirs did. The decision in the present case is at complete variance with common sense, and we have our very strong doubts as to its being legally correct, although of course we are unable to speak authoritatively upon the latter phase of the question. To our mind, the decision is little less than an incentive to dishonesty. To understand how we arrive at such an opinion it will be necessary to enter into a few of the facts. As our readers may remember, one Sargent took a contract from Reynolds. Sargent subsequently assigned his interest in the moneys coming to him under the contract, to Graham, Pitt and Bennett. This assignment the solicitor for the plaintiff in the present action was understood to admit was a good one. A settlement was arrived at between Graham, Pitt and Bennett and Reynolds, in November last. Hayes now sued Reynolds under “ The Workmen’s Wages Act, 1884,” on the ground that Reynolds must still have money in hand belonging to the contractor, because he had deducted some forty odd pounds for meat supplied to Sargent’s camp, and thus, it was contended, there was no agreement that the money should be so appropriated, the workmen’s wages therefore having the prior claim on it. The Magistrate ruled against the plaintiff on this point. In the course of evidence, however, Reynolds stated that he had finally settled with Graham, Pitt and Bennett and had got their clear receipt. Subsequent to the settlement, he had discovered that a clerical error had been made, leaving him still liable to pay some small sum of £t ns 6d to somebody, he did not know who. Graham, Pitt and Bennett acknewledged they had no legal right to claim, having given a clear receipt, and they were prepared to stand by that receipt and lose the £1 ns 6d. The Magistrate intimated he would give judgment (the final adjustment of it was allowed to stand over) that the workmen were entitled to the £1 ns 6d, and as a consequence Reynolds was mulcted in some £2 10s costs. The fact is therefore clear that it was Reynolds’ own honesty that caused the penalty to be inflicted upon him. If he had stood upon his legal rights and said, “ I need not pay this sum ; I have a clear receipt,” it is quite possible he could not be compelled to pay. But he honestly comes forward and admits £1 ns 6d being in hand, and he has to pay for his honesty. It seems to us plain that if Sargent had given Reynolds a clear receipt, no workman could have claimed from Reynolds. We should say the assignment puts Graham, Pitt and Bennett in the same position as Sargent. If we are correct in this assumption, we fail to see why Reynolds was held to be liable to a workman. That he should be saddled with some £2 10s costs is unfair and unjust.