In the County Court, yesterday, a man named John Drakeford brought an action against the Exploration Committee for balance of wages due to him for services rendered to the late Exploring Expedition, Mr Bindon represented the plaintiff, and Mr T F Gell the defendants.

From the evidence of the complainant and others, it appeared that he had been engaged in connexion with the late expedition, first in partial charge of the camels, and next as a cook to the members of the exploring party. In that capacity, however, his services did not appear to have been altogether acceptable to the party. There were, it was stated, more than one disagreement between the plaintiff and the leader of the party, Mr Burke, and ultimately at Menindie, the plaintiff ceased to be connected with the party.

The plaintiff's claim for wages was, on the whole, £25,19s.,3d.; but as against that amount he admitted having received at different times £1; 15s., 14s., and £5. The latter sum, however, he had received from Mr Burke for travelling expenses down from Menindie on his leaving the party.

Mr Landells and Dr Macadam were examined in the case, the evidence of the former going to show that the plaintiff had had very hard work to perform. A letter from John King was also put in, having reference to the engagement of the plaintiff and the services rendered by him. Dr Macadam, in the course of his examination, was asked to identify the signature to the letter, but expressed his inability to do so. Mr King, he added, usually signed himself "John King," while the letter produced was signed "J. King."

Mr Gell, for the defendants, then submitted that the action had been improperly brought, as the plaintiff should have proceeded against Dr Wilkie, by whom his engagement was signed; and that being the case, he could not recover in the present action. It was also stated that the defendant had been offered what the committee considered would have been an equitable settlement of his claim, which he declined. Mr Bindon disputed the position taken up on the other side, and contended that the action had been properly brought.

His Honour took the same view of the case, and gave a verdict for the plaintiff for £16,10s.,3d, the proper balance due to him after all deductions were made, with the costs of the first subpoena in the case.