SUPREME COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume IX, Issue 872, 23 April 1903, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CLAIM FOR WAGES. RITCHIE V. HALL. I.Bcio.e H:-, Mr Jas'Le Con.’ly I At:. S ip.-eau? Court yesterday Thos* Ritebie : a.-.: j : ;o recover from Frederick Had, p,u!.iber of Gi.-boriie. the sum of A'ii':. .jo.' i ■_ of - a k-ged to he due, tog---:.' with lav sum oi Jji-1 1-. one Mi -fonts up'.-r-ared for p.aintill and Mr No! m lor •!: it n .an:. Mr do. s .-.id would It- a simple Tile pm,min in August. 1-S9l, was I'-.np.uyeu by (u-ic-ndan: as m m.-ig.-r of a.s p uuijing bus.:ks-. ITumliff was to g-.-t Jib a week, and work up Tie business as hi- own. ii it- was a success he was to get an imprest in the business. In two ytais time ine business was brought m a good paying point, and from that time his wages were taisc.i to £:j (is. Tncre was no siuud perio i at winen ins wages sliou 1 be paid ; s:;meiun-:s tiiey were paid ik y, uioutii yor urtiiichtly. In April, 1902, while on Mr Hail's business, he met with an accident through a piece of iron striking his loot. Up lo this time he had given every satisfaction. i’lniuiifi was laid up for some time, but even when in the hospital he was consulted as to pricing. etc., in connec'ion with the business. As soon as Mr Ritchie was well he returned to his business. As a general manager Mr Ritchie was entitled to wages while he was laid up, and also while he was away at Rotorua for treatment.

Plaintiffs evidence was in accordance with the opening statement made by counsel.

Cross-examined by Mr Nolan plaintiff stated that- he came to Gisborne through representations made by defendant’s brother-in-law. Ho was engaged as manager at the rate oi three pounds per week. Auer an upiiiii tight tie brought the business to a paying point, but the defendant Had noi gi on nun u.-o bonus that bo promised him when enu ring in. employment. Thu ilcfcmlunt kept pm. lug him ull, and piutaising tout no wuuai endeavor to do better for ban tin.- following year. In isiio ms wages wi re increased by tia a week, and deiendaut gave linn credit tor goons to the amount oi £2i as a bonus. As a rule be received his wages in sums of X'2U and i£ilO, but he couid have had ic by the week if he had desired. Defendant’s daughter had kept the books lor the last two or three years. She handed him a cheque fur TL4 after ho returned to work, but ne did not ask what it was for. He spoke to Mr 11 all at the hrst opportunity about the matter. He hud some words with the defendant in regard to an account of Maekrell and Colley. It was a most unjust row because ic referred to a time when witness was in the hospital, lie did not follow the defendant out of the shop and tell him that it was quite evident tiiey could not got on together, and it would be best for him to leave. Mr Nolan : Didn’t Mr Hall say, “ You can do what you like about that.” Witness : No. Mr Nolan : Didn’t you say “ What about my wages ?’■ and didn’t he say “ Go into the office and get them ?” Witness : No, I did nut. Mr Nolan : Hid you then say *• I have got my wages tor the time I was working, but it is my hack wages I want '?” Witness : No. Mr Nolan : Hidn’t he then say that you couid clear out and gat your back wages elsewhere '?

W itness : I asked Mr llail about the back wages, but lie did not tuff mo tu go. His Honor ; I thought that it was agreed that'the only question to be decided was whether tne defendant was habie to pay the plaintiff during the man’s absence. Mr Nolan : That is the main question. His Honor : It is the only question. Mr Nolan : Huring the t,iuio you were in the Hospital did you make any claim 2 Witness : No, i thought Mr Hull would treat me fairly. The hrst time I mentioned the matter was on January 26th. I gave no notice to Mr Hall under the Workers’ Compensation Act. Mr Hail knew all about the accident. Mr Jones : it is admitted by us that no notice was given under the Accident to Workers' Compensation Act. Had he given that notice We would have been saved the trouble ol bringing this action. Harry Thompson stated that lie was passing Hail’s shop one day about the cud ot January, and heard the defendant teli the plaintiff to pack up his traps and clear. He uid hot hear anything further. David Dawson iiud had a lengthy experience in the plumbing trade, aul as a manager he would expect a month’s

notice. By Mr Nolan ; It depended to a great extent on tile agreement when engaged. J. A. Harding, licensee ot the Masonic Hotel, deposed mat lie knew both parties in the present action. He remembered the plaintiff meeting with an accident, and going to the hospital. At Mr Hall's request, witness one day rang up the hospital, und enquired it Mr Ritchie was well enough tu run out prices. The matron answered the telephone, and stated that plaintiff was lit tor mat work, and chat it would mno way injure him. Tile vvuik was to be done in the hospital. Mr Hall was at tins time laid up nnuself, and was incapable of doing any work. Mr Hull toid witness that ho bad received word from Ritchie that he was unable to do the work. John W. Wade remembered Mr Ritchie coming to Gisborne in 1901, and being thou introduced to him by Mr Hail as

manager. His Honor : It is not disputed that he Was manager '! Mr Joims : Yes, it is stated in the pleadings that Mr Ritchie started as a journeyman plumber. Continuing, witness said that be himself had had thirty years’ experience in the trade. He would give an ordinary tradesman a week’s notice, and more to a

manager. Mr Nolan : Supposing you had a man ill for eight months would you still pay him ?

Witness : I have my men insured. Mr Nolan : But apart from that would you allow for wages supposing a claim was made? Witness : If a man was lying ill for so long I would have to discharge him —I could not keep it hanging on. Mr Nolan: If you uid not discharge him you consider you would be liable to pay him ? (Witness: Yes. Mr Nolan : If it had gone on would you pay '■ \\ itness: I could not run the risk. I would discharge him. This CiOstd the plain tiffs case. Mr Ni,lan then opened for the defence, contending that plaintiff was on daily wage, payable weekly. The piaimitl Lit his work ; had not left any word where he was going ot communicated with Mr Hall. He had worked on after the accident and no intimation had been made as to the reason why he hau left, nor had any claim been made under the Act protecting workmen. He allowed matters to Sleep loteight or nine months, and then catne for-

ward with a claim for wages for the whole period, double what- he could have obtained under the Accidents Act. Employers would be in a serious position if the principle laid down were adopted. Frederick Hail deposed that amongst other businesses be carried on that of plumbing. In I&91 he employed the i piainttff. He was engaged by witness's brotbe-r-in law in Auckland, under tnstruc- i

tions to employ a plumber and send him to Gisborne. Plaintiff arrived and witness told him that if be was a suitable man he might get constant employment, at a wage ot AM per week. Nothing was said as to any notice to be given in case of dismissal. Plaintiff remained in the employ until be went to the Hospital in April. The

wages were raised a shilling a day about May, 1894 ; he continued at that rats until he went to the Hospital. At this stage the question of the “bonus” was raised. Defendant said it was not given as a bonus, but as backwages. He had given £25; he had knocked it off an account for building a bouse. The amount was given in 1901. His Honor: It comes to the same thing ; you gave him £25.

Continuing, witness explained that plain. ! tiff bad built a house for which defendant I dM the plumbing and painting, and the j ~-5 was allowed off that between 1901 I and 1902. That was by way of back I wages. j

Mr Nolan : I take i: you. - Honor ha- ! practically settled that it was a we-a! | wage. i His Honor: Both p'uintitx and defendant say that it was a weekly v.age. | Mr No.an : Did plaintiff give you any j notice of going to the Hospital2 Witness: No. j His Hum.; : You never heard that he ! was m the I-lospipK | W itn-’s: 1 never heard from him why ' he iv is in -he Hospital. | Mr N; ion : i> .1 you have any (-out- ! mu: icatii i. with him while he w in the Ue-pi.o! 2 j Witness: None whatever. oi. Nolan : I lid on s.. nd any -n'mtgr ? ! Witness: Ye;; Ism: Mr Wide to ask him :o is’-.-nl tv* aavbo k. but Miss Stewart (; v m non- van not allow him. Continuing, witness said that plaintiff i:ad done no work for him from the time he went to me hospital until he went on again, ri.iiutifl called on him after he came oil’, oi the hospital before going to Rotorua. l!e jus! eaiue into the office and said he was going to Rotorua; the doctor had instructed him to go. Met plaintiff again m December, on the Ormond road, as lie (doleii-Jantl was during i.is buggy, l’limitiff got out ui his buggy and went to him and said, ‘* I hear ii is rumored l am not going to get my billet back again.” Witness replied, “ I know nothing about any rumors, it seems tiiat the people know more about my business than L do myself.” He said “ I have always tried to do my best for you.” Witness replied “ Yes, I don’t say you have not.” He said “ Everyone is liable to mistakes.” Witness said -‘ Certainly.” He said I hear that Mr Wade has been giving every satisfaction, and I am very pleased to hear it.” Wade had been taking plaintiff’s place. Witness replied, “ Yes, lam well satisfied with him." He said, “ What about me coming back again, lam nearly well.” 1 said, “ Yes, you will come back on one condition ; I’ll manage tne business myseif.” He said, “ What does that mean, that 1 have to come back as an ordinary workman 1 said, ‘- 1 do not know so much about that; i ll see.” He said, " Vv lieu I’m right I li cuuio round io see you.” A week or two afterwards ho met me in the stteel. lie said lie laid got pretty well, and cou.d go to work; that lie couid nut do any hard work, but couel perhaps fix up some accounts. I said, All tight, you go up to the shop and start,” and he came to work on the Bth January, remaining until the 20tii January. There hurl been several squabbles between us in regard tu work before then. On the 20tlr January there was an account sent out tiiat- was not correct, and when tile account was returned io me I went in to plaintiff and saiO, “ The least you can do, now you are here, is to see tiiat the accounts go out correct.” Wo had some words over it, and lie followed me out into tiie road after I left the shop. Ho said, “It seems nothing I can do will pleaso you, and the best tiling I can do is for me to leave you.” I said, " You can please yourself about that.” lie said, "All right-; what about my wages ?” I said, “ Haven’t you had your wages V Ii not, go round to tliu clerk and get them.” He said, “ I have mid my wages since I have been back, but I waul my back wages.” His Honor : What did you understand by that? Witness : Tiiat lie was claiming his wages lor when lie was sick. I told him that he would get no hack wages from me without the law compelled me to. Ho said "We will sco.’’ I said “ All right you can go and sec.” Tue clerk paid him a cheque on 24th January for A"i4 beiore that, lor a week before iiu went to the hospital, and three weeks he had worked the second time. When witness said tiie cheque was £l4 tie asked the clerk about it, and site said there bad been error, ii should have been JJio 4s. That was the first time plaintiff had even asked lor back wages. llhad not asked for any money at all before that. After the conversation on the 2(ith plaintiff did not leave for some hours afterwards. By Mr Jones : I did not to my knowledge use the words spoken to by Mr Thompson. I used no words amounting to a dismissal oi plaintiff. I was not excited at tiio time, but L have no remem brauce of using the words stated. His wages were paynblo fortnightly at tile first. Mr Ritciiie had come to me from Auckland, hut lucre was no arrangement vvitii him whatever. Any talk over the terms took place in Auckland. 1 do not remember sending a cab to meet him. He came to my house on a Bunday evening prior to going to work. He said he had been engaged in Auckland by my brother. He was the only man in the business then ; there were no others employed. Mr Jones: Hid you not engage him as manager ? No. Mr Jones : Hid you not advertise him as manager immediately he came to you ? Witness : That may have been none ; there was only himself to manage. Mr Jones : Would you bring a man from Auckland to take control and dismiss him with a week’s notice ? Witness : Yes, if ho did not suit ho should have a week’s notice or a week’s pay. I still say no arrangement was made for a longer uuiiee, nor was any made by my brother-in-law. Riaintiif had supervision under me. Hid not know that plaintiff was lame after the accident. About a mouth before ho went tu the hospital he said that there was nothing wrung with his foot.

Mr Jones : You knew that ho hud goue to the hospital 2 Witness: Not from Mr Ritchie, only second nandea. Mr Jones : Did you not know ho had to undergo an operation almost immediately he got there ? Continued on page 4.