RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT.

Inangahua Times, Volume VIII, Issue 1323, 14 November 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT.

-» Tuesday, November 13th, 1833. (Before W. H. Re van, Eaq., R.M.) BLLI3TON V. EUREKA COMPANY. Thia was an action to recover the sum of £5, alleged to be due for working overtime, for the company. The following evidence waa taken : — . . Arthur J. Kllistou— About the 18th August I was working for the company. The engineer was about leaving, and I offered to do certain work for £5 per week. The matter was loft over till the next Saturday when I again saw the di- ' rectors, and they suggested that I should take £4 per week. I refused, but after a deal of haggling I consented to go on at £4' 10s a^wetik. ; That was not agreed •to but it was arranged that I should go out at £4 a-week, and after being there some time make application for aii increase when it would be favourably entertained. I found however,. after being there a little tinie that 1 could not do the whole of work required, even at the. higher rate, the duties being too multifarious ; I was engine-driver, blacksmith, carpenter &C I then resigned and demanded payment at the same rate aa my predecessor. The company refused to pay the. extm and hence the present action. I. have fliyejj the com party credit for all nibney's paid on account. "" *"' c> '-' By Mr Hindmarsh : Rocollect speaking to Mr Kilgour as to the duties to bo per* formed .and rate of wages- ;v*qld him I would go for £4 aweek, but at.tha end of a fortnight would send in an .application for increase'; don't remoubu- Mr Kilgour saying anything to me ab ut overtime ; recollect the mine manager asking me : on the 29th Sept. to give in my time ; : gave him the overtime for working in Thomas' place; told him at the timo . that I had other overtime to charge ; did tftll the directors that if they gave me the same wages as my predecessor I could not charge for the overtime ; the letters produced; .are in my. handwriting; I was allowed extra time for working in Thomas' place ; the oven-time, charged is for work done outside my own duties ; the men objected to M'Loughlm being in charge of the winding engine," saying that if an accident occurred I would be responsible. : ' | ' ffm. Hindmarshrr-I am the legal manager of the company ; Mr Elliston was employed un the 25th August at £4 10s a-week; he was placed, in charge of the winding plant and machinery. Mr Kilgour was deputed to see Elliston and arrange with him as to his duties ; he was to receive £4 a-week without overtime ; on the last week of September plantiff made an application for £q a-week ; but the directors would only allow £4 10s; plantiff left the employ qri the.Qth 9 ct i and sent in a claim for overtime.. By plautiff Ashton was paid overtime i when he was in charge at £4 a-week ; Henderson also received overtime under the same circumstances. I know of no special arrangements having been made with you regarding overtime. Joseph Kilgour -I am a director of the Eureka Company and recollect seeing Elleston regarding his duties ; told him distinctly that we could not give more than £4 per week ; advised him to go back to work and said that the director* would consider his case at the next meeting ; the directors subsequently agreed to give him £4 103 ; informed plantiff and told him distinctly that ho overtime would be paid ; do not think plantiff can fairly charge for supervising White ; the latter was a tradesman and learned his. business in the foundry at Greymouth ; am positive that I told Elliston that no overtime would be allowed. ■ • By plantift Your shift was six hours at the engine and the other two hours for preparing timber and sharpening tools ; I did not see White at work, but believe him capable of driving the engine ; there was a complaint against him for breaking I a rope. f By the Bench — Elleston was placed in full charge ; Elleßton's predecessor was a certificated engineer, and therefore properly qualified, Ashton received £s per week and there waa also a man employed at £3 a-week to dress timber. Thomas Collins— Was present when the arraugement was made with plantiff and heard Mr Kilgour say distinctly that there was to be no overtime. John Tousker lam mine manager of the Eureka Company ; I produce paysheet showing overtime claimed by plantiff; he supplied the ime himself; when the cheque came out informed plantiff and told him to take it ; he refused to do so, saying that there was more over ime. By plantiff— Am not aware you told me the overtime charged was for working in Thomas' place ; have seen you working on several Sundays ; you were with White for some days ; it is a common rule ; it is possible that you worked overtinie without my knowing it. ' "• Thia closed the case.

His Worship having reviewed the facts i as disclosed in the evidence, said there : 'Was the distinct testimony of two of the directors as to the non-allowance of overtime* It had,, however,' been shown • hat this plaintiff had worked on Sundays, doing urgent work, and he was therefore entitled td recover fo* that service. Judgmentfor £3 and costs. j CIVIL CASES. PAIN AND BANKIN V . HARFORD. Judgment summons calling upon de fendant to show cause why he had failed to satisfy^* ■ judgment of "the' Court for £12. Defendant having been examined at some length as to his earnings and ability to pAy the claim, His Worship refused to make any order. . ANDERSON V. SotOMON. An action to recover the sum of €78 7s 6d alledged to be due on a sale of 250 shares in the Globe Company. Mr Lynch appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Menteath for the defendant. Mr Lynch having opened upon the facta called the following evidence : — D. P. Anderson : I am a sharebroker residing at Reefton. On the 24th September of the present year defendant purchased a parcel of 250 Globe shares from me at 6s 3d. The shares came from ' Dunedin. On the 17th he said he would go to Mr Pickering and get the money : subsequently saw him and he said Mr Pickering had refused to let him have the i money ; this would be about the 21st • October ; on the Monday he did not come j near me and on the following day, the j 21st, I served him with the notice produced ; received no reply to that notice and served him with another on the fol- i lowing day intimating that I could not i hold the shares any longer, and that un- I less they were taken up by 3 p.m. on the : next day I should have to sell them ; I obtained no reply to the second notice ; Saw defendant that evening when he complained that I hadspokenof the transaction to Mr Pickering about it ; he then said he would reproduce the sale on the ground that I had kept him waiting ; was prepared o deliver he shares to him on the day after the sale was effected; On the 13th when Mr Pickering tendered the bought note to defendant the shares were then from 3s to 3s 6d I held over the shares .simply to convenience the defendant, and first heard on the 23rd that he would repudiate ; as soon as I found he would not complete I tendered him a transfer ; this was on the 7th November ; he said I had served him with two notices, and I could act upon them ; I have had a good deal of experience in sharobroking in Reefton ; the rule is that brokers hold each other liable for all transactions effected without regard to principals ; the shares were purchased on the 24th, and I could have delivered on the following day if defendant had required it ; on the 23rd October the shares were from 3a 9d to 4s. By Mr Menteith : They were not my own shares that I sold to defendant ; I bought them from a broker in Dunedin ; the consideration actually paid at the time was 6s 3d per share ; lam sueing as a sharebroker, and it was as sharebroker and client that I entered into the transacr tion with defendant ; was on friendly terms with defendant at the time of the transaction, and am so still. Albert Pickering : I am agent of the; Bank, of New Zealand at Reefton, I recollect itfr Andersontelling' me in October that ho had sold some Globes to defendant ; he was then going away to Groyruouth and left me a sale note. I saw do feudant and asked him for a cheque ; he said it was not convenient just then and to let it stand over till Anderson's .return. This was Saturday and Anderson was to return on the following onday ; defendant said ho was not just then in a posi tion to retire the draft, and it was arranged that it should stand over till the Monday. Recollect ■ seeing defendant subsequently and he admitted the transaction and he came to me with the view of carrying out the bargain ; he said nothing about the shares not having been supplied in time. Cross-examined Defendant did not tell me that it was not his intention to bear the whole loss of the transaction. Charles Clifford : Recollect a conversation between plan tiff and defendant in reference to Globe shares, and saw some document tendered to 'defendant i>y plantiff. Know nothing further about the matter. • : This closed the case for the plantiff. Mr Menteath then opened the case for the defendant, 'after which he called the following evidence : — Edward Solomon ; Saw- plantiff on the 21st September, and on that day gave him an order to buy 250 shares in the Globe Company at 6/3 and he said "all right." Raw him again subsequently when he aaid he had got the shares ; I asked him whether they were local shares, as, if . so, I would settle up for them at once ; he said the shares were coming from Nelson and would be here in a week ; it was a part of the transaction that Uie shares should be delivered in a week; my reason for stipulating for a week was that it was my first transaction with Anderson and I wished it to be closed quickly ; I had a buyer for the shares at the time, and as soon as the week was up I called on plantiff ; he said he had not yet received the shares, but they would arrive on the next mail night; called again on the next mail night but the shares had not come to hand and plantiff said he had received word from hia principle that they would arrive by next mail ; called again on the following mail night, but the shares had not arrived; at this time the shares were going up ; told Anderson that it was time the shares were here and the transaction closed ; he said he could not help it as it was. his broker's fault j told him 1 had nothing to do with his broker, that I wanted the shares ; he became huffed and I left him ; heard nothing further of the matter till the shares had fallen ; was returning from Greymouth on the 11th October and met plantiff on the way but he said nothing relative to the transaction ; on the Saturday night at about 10.30. p.m. Mr Pickering called on me at Dawson's Hotel and asked payment for the shares ; ♦ old him to hold the matter over till Anderson returned ; had the shares gone up nothing more would have been heard of the transaction ; plautiff never called on me regarding the transaction, I always called on him and he put me off from time to time ; finally the shares arrived, and I then told him that I regarded the transaction as at an end owing to the great delay, but as a friend I would help him out of the difficulty ; he said he had had to pay for the shares and I told him that J would g^e him £40 if he lodged the shares m the bank, and if they went up I would pay the balance and if they went down we should sell the shares and divide the loss. The offers of compromise I made were outside the transaction, as , Con i?l £ ed tho affliir waa afc » n end ; I when Mr Pickering called me out of Daw sou a he said that Audereon had left him

a transfer ; I told him that I would arrange with Anderson, and there would be no bother as we were friends. I Cross-examined : I did not tender An- , derson a transfer ; I took his word and i he took mine ; I have been broking in Reefton for the last two years William Himlmarah : I am a sharebroker in Reefton, and legal manager of the Globe Company; I produce the register of the company ; the register shows ail share transactions in the >joinpauy ; in June of this year 150 shares in the company passed to Anderson's name; on the 3rd November last 250 shareß also passed to his credit : I produce the transfers. On the 24th September the ruling quotations for Globes woul-.l be 6* 61 to 7s, and about the 14th October about 3s 6.1 or 4a, and later still 3s 61 to 4a 61 ; the usual rate of commission. between brokers here is lj per cent. — £ commission. Cross-examined : It is usual here for the brokers o regard each other as principals, and to hold each' other responsible for the completion of transactions ; have myself been-Jield liable for non-completion. Re-examined : In the case just referred to I simply acted as a broker on commission ; had no other interest in the transaction. , . By Mr; Lynch : In a transaction with Mr Solomon as a shardbroker I should regard him as the principal, and expect me to regard him as Mich. By Mr Menteath : If I received a commission io buy shares at 6s 3d, and was able to get them at 3s 6<l, I should give my principal the full benefit of the difference, relying simply upon ray commission. That is always my practice. Charles Watkins : lan? a surveyor.; I i authorised defendant to buy some Globe ! shares for me about the 3rd October ; he I was to deliver them withiu a day or two, : which he failed to do. | Thos. Win, Nayamith :Xam a miner, ; residing in Riefton, and a shareholder in . the Globe Company; I purchased my i shares a week ago for 4s 9d from Mr i MoSS.---j D. P. Anderson, recalled The transi fers produced refer to the shares pur-. I chased for Mr Solomon, and they arrived : here from Dunoiin. The parcel of 200 \ belonged to Mr Lacky, w>o resides in i Greymouth. ; Tins closed the case. i Counsel then addressed the Court. His Worship said that in share n«mcions between brokers both law and usage i 'required thai the parties should be re- j j garded as principals. It appeared from the evidence that plain iff had not been ' guilty of negligence in the delivery. ' Judgment would therefore go for plan tiff, the measure of damage being the difference iv the price of shares at the date of sale or purchase, and the date when the transfer was formally tendered to defendant. This was shown •«> be 1/6 per share and the judgment would therefor go for i Ll9 aud 2 18s costs of Court and professional fe\ j The Court then adjourned .