Untitled

Gisborne Times, Volume IX, Issue 872, 23 April 1903, Page 4

Witness : No. 1 n. ver inquired its to bow he wits getting on,or heard hom anyone. 1 did not send dim the wees s wages, [ sent Mr Wade to hint once to <>et V. quantity taken out. He did nothing whatever to the books. Mr Hurtling nor anyone had not told me that if the books were taken to the hospital Mr lilt erne would do them. My daughter did not tell me piaiutijj had calied. I did not make any objection to li is going to Rotorua. Mrs Honor : Why should he ? Witness continued: I did not send any notice terminating the contract. Some of the men were warned and some not. I did not give any notice re Mr Ritchie ; he did nob ask; I did not know it was an

accident. . Alfred Wade deposed that since plumtill's illness he had been employed in 11 to position. He was sent by Mr Hall on one occasion to see Mr Ritchie. Ho asked plaintiff to fix up the prices m the daybook. lie said that Miss Stewart would not allow him. Mr Hall was then very

ill, and was so for some time atieiwunis Plaintiff had done no work at witness suggestion during that time or by insirnc lions from Mr Hall. Witness w<s 'ictinr as manager during that nine and wool, have known. On the bid n daini uy between'd and i! p.m., p.ainidl cmiic i'ut,ho shop and said tout he was going aw'tj Ho Imd not heard any row who Mi Hal that liny.

Hy Mr Jones: On occasions no him visited Mr Ritchie as a friend, and naturally work cropped up. He used to go to the Hospital two or three times a week as a friend Plaintiff might have taken out quantities, but Mr Hail del nui know anything about it. Travellers had visited him at the Hospital and Ritchie had given witness advice as to orders. Mr Hal! did not know about the lad going over to Ritchie’s house to obtain quantities for Dunlop’s job. Counsel then addressed the Court. Mr Nolan stated that the facts as detailed fairly agreed, and then there came questions of law. The plaintiff, he said, had given no intimation of what had happened to him, but after nine months swooped down and claimed full damages. . The trend of legislation was to make it as favorable to the workman as possible, and protection was given, it being necessary to make a claim within three months. Hut plaintiff had given no notice of the accident.

His Honor: I cannot assume that Mr liall knew nothing about it. L think ho is bound to have known if one of his employees was injured. He is sure to have known within three months if a man had been injured and gone to the hospital. I suppose that within a month nearly everyone would have known. Mr Nolan said that plaintiff had continued his work for sonic time afterwards, showing that it could nut have been a very serious accident. In any case ho would only obtain fifty per cent of his wages in compensation. Counsel then went on to argue that there could be no claim for wages in law. If the principle were laid down that a weekly servant laid up for a long period could claim wages for the whole time it would be very serious for employers. His Honor : If an employee who had been at work for a couple of years took ill for a week or so an employer would pay tlie wages whether entitled to do so or not, ana if it was through accident provision was made for half-wages if notice were given within three months, but in this case there was no evidence of notice. It seemed inconsiderate to bring an action for the full wages unless thero was sorno reason why no notice was given. Mr Nolan: No reason has been shown in the evidence; we had no notico of it. His Honor : Thero was plenty of tirno to liavo given it. Ho might not have known of the Act, but people aro supposed to bo aware of it. Mr Jones said his argument was, when a man was engaged, in this caso at a weekly wage, and took ill, ho was still entitled to wages unies3 the contract wore rescinded.

Hia Honor said that in this case there was a contract for a weekly wage only. Mr Jones : All the same there was a contract. 1 His Honor : You mean to say that engagement for a weekly wage means a contract, which unless expiessiy rescinded would continue for lile ? Mr Jones : Oh, not necessarily that.. Mr Nolan : That is what my frienu argues. Mr Jones : I say that a contract for a weed: must ho determined in some manner bv the parties, and it not determined continues in exist. JHis Honor said that ho would hear what Mr Jones had to say, but iH present was very much against him. Mr Jones said he was sorry for that. It was unfortunate that the ease had arisen, but cash had trusted to the other, and as for the time of a claim for compensation being made that had gone past. He went on to quote cases. His Honor said that it was not the intention of the Legislation after making provision for compensation that a workman could cornu and claim the whole amount. Mr Jones said that the time had been allowed to go by. His Honor: Why did he allow it to

go by? Mr Jones: Like most of these cases, I suppose, where one party has faith in the other, or probably in tins ease through the want of knowledge. When 1 came into the caso the time had gone past and there was only one method of. procedure. He went on to claim that there was a sound case. His Honor said that one ease Mr .Jones had ({tuned was to his mind such an nnsatisiaeiorv judgment, that, lie woni«l mu, follow 1 1. His Honor : Von say Unit, if a man arranged to work for hr! a week, and became iii for twelve months, lie could claim the wages? Mr .Jones : Yes, it 1 lie contract had not, been determined. His Honor: The contract was to

do certain work at k-'-l per week and lie did not do it . Mr .Jones : hieeattse he was prevented by iilitess. In giving judgment, llt.s Honor said dial, practically plaintiff had done no Work for defendant during the illness There was a denial that there had been any wrongful dismissal, but it might appear that, plaintiff was dismissed without notice. Why lie should ask fur a month's notice, he (His Honor.) could not understand, it being only a weekly hiring. There might- he cases where, though there was tlie payment of a weekly wage, the agreement would be for a longer period, but this was the case of an oni inary Workman, and a week's notice would he sufficient. On the iir.st claim of £.llß he would not allow anything. As to the second claim he was a little doubtful whether lie should allow .anything, hut he was not satislied that he should allow

nothing : therefore he would allow a week’s wages. Judgment would he for plaintiff for £'S (is, and such costs as would be allowed in the Magistrate's Court.