CIVIL CASES.

Inangahua Times, Volume IX, Issue 1386, 11 April 1884, Page 2

CIVIL CASES.

Jones v. Walhaila Company— Claim for | work and labor done. .Judgment by consent for the amount, claimed and costs. Lynch v. Roxburgh, and Notman Claim for 16/- for trespass of. horses... Plantiff deposed that defendants, horaus wefU'^lJohtinually Ir&p&ssing upon his land The trespass was not denied, and judgment was given for the amount and costs. " ' ' ogan and party v. M'Parland ]aihi for L 3 for work and labor done. Denis Hogan : On the 31st March I went to cut hay for defendant. I worked three days cutting chaff. , On the fourth morning when I went to -work he had the place blocked up so' that we could not work. Asked defendant and he said there was no room to work. ross Kxamined by Mr Lynch : Defendant did ask me to give him a price fur cutting the hay. There was about tw<( tons ; I did tell him something about cutting all the hay for L 3 ; he did ask me to do it for less ; I never promised to bag it as well as cut it ; I did not tell him it would take three days, to do it ; made no. arrangment with defendant- ; I would not be certain that I did not say that there was more in the stack than I thought, and that it would not pay ; won't swear I didsay it ; I engaged Davis 1 ; did no work on" the fourth day. Peter M 'Parland : I am a mail contractor. On Friday week last I met plantiff in the street. He said he was doing nothing, I said I had a small job of cutting hay, and told him to go and- havo a look at it ; ho did so, and agreed to cut it for L 3; I agreed and promised to get him a chaff machine ; I got the machine for them and they went away ; saw Hogan in the street and he said there was more hay than they thought, and they wouM not go on with it unless I gave them more mouey ; I would not agree to this, and they went away ; I did not prevent them from going on with the contract. By defendant : % ever told you that I would not pay you a penny as there was no contract. Case dismissed: BATES V. HOPEFUL COMPANY. This was a claim for £5,. for damages for wrongful dismissal without notice. Defendants had paid : 8 6s 8d into Court and disputed the balance. Mr Menteath for plaintiff, Mr Lynch for defendants. The engagement and terms were admitted by defendants. John Bates : I was engaged by the Company on a weekly salary as mine manager, the salary being L 5 per week. In March I received a notice of dismissal from the legal manager. I demand one weeks notice. By Mr Lynch : The pay-sheet produced is in my handwriting : my time is down as L 8 6s Bd, that was to date. I demanded L 5 extra and refused to accept the cheque tendered. I received a letter from the legal manager on Saturday night intimating that it was intended to suspend operations in the mine, and requesting me to do so. I went out to Boatman's on Monday morning and dismissed the one man employed in the mine. There is no time for the mine manager to go to work ; he can go to work when Relikss ; I went to work on the morning in question about 8 o'clock. I was delayed on the road by sonic of Ihe directors who were talking to me about the suspension of the work. This closed the plaintiffs case. Mr i.ynch said the defence was that the plaintiff wilfully neglected to act upon the Hrst notice requiting him to immediately suspend' operations in the mine, .and in consequence of that disobeyance he was dismissed, and such discharge having resulted from plaintiffs n*gU#niee

he was not entitled to recover the usual a week's notice. tl Samuel Barr : I am a director of the I Hopeful Company ; recollect meeting p plaintiff on the Monday at Boatman's ; he S( told me that he had received instructions 1 from the Company to suspend operations' in the mine, and he was going up to gather up the tools Saw plaintiff again *■ that night and he was then given to C understand that he was discharged ; it is a c usual thing for a mine manager to be on p the mine when the men change shifts. < By the Court : There was one man em- c ployed in the mine, but there was uo shift. r By r Lynch : Bates did not say he v would not act upon the manager's notice ; a on the Tuesday morning defendant re- 1 fused" to give up the key of the hut con- \ taining the tools ; did not delay plaintiff € in going to work • a By Mr Menteath : Gardner. Russell, and myself held a meeting and decided to demand the key from plaintiff ; it is usual c to gather up the tools when work is sus- « pended in a mine. •' By Mr Lynch : The reason why we suspended work was because there was no more stone in that level. By the Bench The men we put on I are on tribute ; a resolution had been i passed putting the mine on tribute ; I did , not object to Bates going to work on the l day in question ; he said lie did not understand that the letter included his suspension. ' j William Gardner : On the Bth March a \ resolution of directors was passed that nil * operations cease in the mine ; the reason ] was that there was no more stone to get j out just then ; the reason for Bate's sus- \ pension was that he had misled us frei quently in his reports ; during the time he has been in the employ of the Company j the works have been carried on at a loas, and the expense has been enormous ; the 1 management of the mine under him 1 has. . been far from satisfactory ; he j reported to-. us' that he could commence j crushing on the 10th January, and we are not yet crushing ; we could not obtain the battery lately, but it ws available in Jan- . vary ; there had been a threat that plain- ] tiff would run the, company into debt if < (they interfered with him. By Mr Menteath ; There is no minute < Appointing me manager in chief, but I , '! have been recognised as such. ( This closed the case. His Worship said the letter produced Bhowed that the directors had decided to ' suspend all work in the mine, but the ', £rst letter did not suspend piaintiff, and j 1 lie was quite justified in the course he j i subsequently pursued. What the witness , Gardner said as to the manager having . run the company into enormous expense. , and performed his duties in an unsatisfac- ( tory manner, was the fault of the directors, for they should not have allowed ■it. But the state of things was allowed to go on, and now at the last moment the ■ plaintiff was to be jumped upon. Judg- ; ment would be for thesplaintiff for LI 8 8s \ , and costs of Court and witnesses expenses. VAGRANCY. Daniel Gilbert was charged on arrest ! ' with having been illegally on the premises of Mr ind marsh, in February la&t, as , also on several occasions lately. ' Accused denied the charge. William Hindmarsh . I recollect the ; 10th February last, I was at home on that evening, and between half-past 10 and 11 ; o'clock my daughter came' to my room and j Baid that there was a man dodging about : •the centre tree. It was moonlight, and I ■••• jumped out of bed and in stepping off the '.! verandah I heard the gate clip. I 1 saw , somebody running away, but I could not i identify the man ; my place is Becurely enclosed all round, and there is a front and a back gate; I did not expect any : visitor at that hour on that night. i ' At . this stage Mr Lynch said he had just received instructions to appear for , the accused. He asked for an adjourn- I ment to enable him to receive instructions. ' The man had only just been arrested, and it would be unfair both to counsel and '■ client to rush the case on. The police said the accused knew that the charge was hanging over his head. . His Worship said he would grant a remand, but he should require substantial bail. Remanded far eisjht days, bail accepted, accused in 1,50, and two sureties of L 25 each. The required bail was ; tendered by William Cochrane and John , • George Heslop. . j His Worship said he would not accept Heslop's bail, and the name of Mr Barr; was substituted. - • ' f '- WAXHAXLA COMPANY V. GEO. WTSE. ' This was an application for an order of . the court requiring the legal manager to j deliver up possession of the books of the company. Mr Lynch appeared for the plantiffs, and Mr Menteath for' the defendant. Mr Menteath said before proceeding with the case he wwuld like the ourt to decide in what capacity his learned friend appeared there. Under the "Mining Companies Act," no two companies could adopt he same name. . He held in his hand a written authority from the direc- '. tors of the company appointing him as the , solicitor of the company. He argui'.l that the authority in question was sufiicient to justify the court in calling upon the counsil for the other bide to show his authority for appearing. .; Mr Lynch : submitted that his appearance was perfectly regular. The Court was bound to accept the assurance of counsel when stated that he appeared for a pei son before the Court. His \Vorship said he would decide > to hear the evidence.. He would accept Mr Lynch's assurance that he appeared for the Walhalla Extended Company. 1 Mr Menteath raised as a further i point, that the Court had no jurisdic- ' tion to deal with any disputes between ; mining partners. His Worship overruled the point, ] and the evidence was then proceeded ] with, and the case occupied the Court { until 7 p.m., when the plaintiffs wer« < nonsuited with costs and professional j fee. _^_^___________ i