R.M. Court.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume V, Issue 658, 12 September 1891, Page 2

R.M. Court.

THE PENALTY OF GOING TO LAW. The civil business at the ordinary weekly sitting of the Court on Thursday was presided over by Messrs Campbell and Lewis, Justices, Every case was an illustration of the folly 0! litigation when amicable settlements might ba arrived at wjthdut the expense of going to Ooqrt. £ln the first case, Harbor Board v, W. A, Hodge, claim 8a Jd, Mr Warren said the amount due had been paid, but without the cost of the summons. He bad allowed an adjournment to enable the matter to be settled, but no response had been made, Judgment went by default, with costa 7s, nearly the amount of the original claim.'

In the case o( B. N. Jones v. J. H. Mason, the defendant had failed to pay an order for £l, though it was deposed that he bad been given every opportunity, and judgment went by default, with costs 6*. In the case J. East v. B. Thelwall, claim £2 Is lid, it appeared that the defendant had gone to the shop and paid the boy the money after the summons bad been issued, but had refused to pay costs of Is lid, so the plaintiff had relied on his legal rights. Judgment went by default for Is lid, with costs 9s. The same plaintiff also got judgment by default against T. Ryan, claim £9 17s 8d (costs 15s), and against T. Caldwell, claim l!’,s gd. In the latter case the costa amounted to nearly the original amount, being 10s.

In a judgment summons by Mr Morell against W. C. Campbell, claim £2 3a, Mr Watson for defendant, said he would eonsent to anorderfor immediate payment, but execution to be stayed for four weeks. Mr Morell agreed to accept this, and an order was accordingly made : in default three day's imprisonment.

The Harbor Board got judgment by default against Christopher Gray, for rates. The claim was for 14s 7d, and the costs 14s. Judgment was also given by default, for rates, against P. Milne ; claim £1 14®« costs fls. A great many amounts tor which the Board had sued various people were paid into Court to save further expense. A case of interest to workmen and contractors took up the greater part of the morning. J. B. Gillmer, laborer, sued Thomas Greene, contractor for bushfalling, for £8 19s Bd. Mr Jones appeared for plaintiff, and Mr ‘DeLautour for defendant. The jilailfi was foy seven weeks' work bmj

odd days at £1 a week, and one week’s wages in lieu of notice. Mr Jones said a set off had been put in, which would be admitted, subject to any reduction the Bench might think proper. There teas a conflict of evidence as to whether or not Greene had agreed to give a pound a week, and found, but he acknowledged that to bo the sum he intended to give. The party were falling bush on Mr Fraser's property at Pouawa. On the first day they were making camp preparations and did not start bush work till nearly noon, and there was a dispute as to whether this should be counted a day or only a half. On the Sunday before plaintiff left he had some words with Mr Greene and gave him a week’s notice. Mr Greene said he could go withoutgiving notice if he liked and plaintiff said he did not care,| but on subsequent thought the plaintiff considered it would not be legal, unless he gave the notice on Monday. Here there was another direct conflict of evidence as to what was done on the Monday. Plaintiff went to work in the usual course, worked that day, and was starting again next day, when defendant stopped him and told him that if he went to Mr Fraser’s place he would get his moneyi Defendant said he was getting Gillmer's account ready on the Monday morning, and on coming out found that the man had gone to work, but defendant admitted that it was not till Tuesday that he had arranged abont the cheque, and also that the bush was only about half a mile away from the camp and that he had seen Gillmer at dinner time on the Monday. At the homestead Mr Fraser offered plaintiff a cheque for £5 Bs. Gillmer declined to take it, saying that it was not enough. Mr Fraser said he had nothing to do with their disputes, and had made the cheque out for the amount stated by Greene. Defendant said nothing about requiring £, lin lieu of notice. In regard to the setoff threepence a stick extra for tobacco was charged above what was paid by the other men, and there was a dispute about one stick. The plaintiff also objected to subscribe 2s 61 towards an acoordian, but the evidence of Mr J. Fox was that plaintiff had agreed to give the half-crown. Mr Craig gave evidence for the plaintiff, and Mr Fraser said that he had offered the cheque at Greene’s request, but be know nothing of the amounts in dispute. Mr DeLautour said the whole matter was very simple. Mr Greene had no doubt made a mistake of a few ehillings in computing the amount, but instead of going to Court aboutit plaintiff should have told Mr Greene what he thought was wrong, and it would no doubt have been settled straight away. As they had not started bush work until about noon on the first day that might fairly ba called a halt day. As to the work on the Monday Gillmer had clearly made, an agreement on the Sunday to go without notice, he could not go back on that next day, and if he chose to go to work after the engagement bad been terminated, Mr Greene could not be expected to leave his own work to run after the man. He thought the case was certainly not one in which coats should be allowed, bls client not having arrived In town in time to pay the money into Court. Mr Jones said the defendant had been given every opportunity to settle the matter, while the plaintiff, who was a poor working man, had to wait about town until he could get paid. Evert after defendant got the summons he bad plenty of time to pay into Court what he now acknowledged to be the amount short, and Gillmer had to wait until the Court sat, They might have objected to any set off being made at that stage, but did not wish to take advantage of teohnioalties. It was for the Bench to decide whether the plaintiff had disentitled himself to a week’s notice, No doubt if he had been paid at once he would have been willing to forego it. He contended that they were certainly entitled to expenses—it defendant had after ample time being given, neglected to pay into Court the amount he admitted to be due that was hie own fault, and the plaintiff was in the ordinary course entitled to expenses. Judgment was given for £S 18s, and costs £2 10s, Their Worships ruled that plaintiff was not entitled to the wages in lieu of notice, as ha had acquiesced in the termination of the engagement, but they allowed for the extra day worked, considering that Mr Greene had made himself liable for it, as he knew Gillmer was at work and had not told him to knock off.