A CLAIM FOR WAGES.

Gisborne Times, Volume IX, Issue 912, 10 June 1903, Page 4

A CLAIM FOR WAGES.

drink

The e;ise of Alexander Williamson v Nelson Bros, was heard yesterday aficrmiun at the Magistrate’s Court, he fore Mr W. A. Barton, S.M. The plaintiff sought to recover the sum of £5 Ids oil, amount of wages due from April 2711) to May dth. Mr It. N. Jones appeared lor plaintiff, aim Mr DeLautour for the defendant Company. In opening I he ease, Mr Jones said Ihe plaint ill was an employee. of Messrs Nelson Bros. On entering their employ, he had to sign an agreement, which was signed by cmplnyecs. The point on which the rase would rest was whether a week’s notice on either side was necessary, except* in case ol misconduct, when instant dismissal followed. ’ The dispute, arose over what plaintiff thought an unjust, accusation, that he had torn some sheep. Plaintiff used strong language to the man in charge (i\Jr Hcgg), unit, dil not justify defendants ill treatin'' him wit'll instant dismissal. The plaintiff also lost the bonus usually -allowed by defendants. lie was going to argue on the ground as to whether the man was guilty of misconduct or not. Mr DeLautour said the statement of claim was correct. It* was not the small amount at stake ; it was the principle. The Company employ a lot. of hands, and if the men gcu. it into their heads that they can tear up this agreement they would have to make another provision.

Alexander Williamson, butcher, deposed that lie engaged with Messrs Nelson Bros, on November 17, 1903. Witness entered into an agreement

in writing (produced). lie was paid every Saturday, when a week s wages were retained. On litli May, a dispute arose between witness and Ml- Hogg, foreman butcher, over a sheep being torn. When witness finished work, he went over to see Mr llogg, and asked him if lie thought it* was fair that he should fine witness. There were two sheep loin. Witness was willing to pay for one, hut Mr llogg replied that lie was going to fine witness for the two. Mr llogg said : “It must have been done through carelessness, or else it would not have been done.’ Witness replied that it was not through carelessness, and if lie was going to fine him he would leave. Mr Hogg said, “ What about. a week’s notice ? You leave this day week ” Witness replied he would go then. Mr Hogg asked witness if lie had signed the rules, to which witness answered yes. Mr Hogg said that that was all he wanted to know, Mr Hogg asked witness again if ho were going to give a week’s Dotice, and witness replied yes. Mr Hogg answered “ Alright, you finish next Thursday night.” Witness said that he was no mart for fining him, and used strong language. Mr Hogg replied that it was carelessness on plaintiff’s part, and said “ You go now.” Witness wanted his money first. Mr Hogg said it would bo all right. Witness gave somebody an order to get his money, and defendants claimod to deduct £5 16s sd. By Mr DeLautour : Mr Hogg said he was satisfied the sheep wore badly dressed, and in reply witness said ho could not do ono better. It was after witness called him a liar that Mr Hogg sacked him. Witness did not offer to go on the board next duy. By Mr Jones : Witness did not spoak to tbo foreman until aftor ho had finished work. Mr DeLautour submitted that the plaintiff must be nonsuited, unless tho Court was of opinion that by his own admission ho was guilty of misconduct. Mr T. A. Hogg, foreman butcher for Nelson Bros., said he had to see that sheep were proporly dressed. Plaintiff used somo very strong lauguago. Witness cautioned plaintiff, and said if ho was going to uso language like that ho would have to go outside. He said to plaintiff, “If you go now you will loso a week’s pay.” Plaintiff replied that ho would see about that, and said he could not make him work if ho was sick. Witness reminded plaintiff of tho conditions, to which he replied in filthy language. Witness then told him he would not allow him to work on tho board any more. By Mr Jones: Plaintiff did bis work well up to that particular day. Witness would not argue with plaintiff. Maurice Osborne, laborer, stated that he would not swear to anything ho heard plaintiff say to Mr Hogg. Mr Jones cited many points of law to show that bad language was not included in the different kinds of misconduct. He also held that the holding back of the money was not legal. After considerable argument by Mr Jones, His Worship reserved judgment.