Claim Against a Fencing Contractor.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIV, Issue 1940, 23 November 1906, Page 3

Claim Against a Fencing Contractor.

In the Magistrate’s Court, before Me W. A. Barton, 8.M., yesterday, Stephen Priestley sued John Harvey, oontraotor, for the sum of £9 19 j, money alleged to be due to plaintiff for wages. Mr Stock appeared for plaintiff and Mr Blair for defendant.

Defendant paid the amount of 13 1 into Court in settlement. Mr B'air stated that the dispute was a question whether defendant had agreed to pay plaintiff 8i per day in addition to food or simply 8s p-'r day. His elieut denied having agreed to give plaintiff his tucker as well as tbe 8s per day. Stephen Priestley, plaintiff, stated that at the end of July he was engaged by de fendant to do some fenoing. Witness was to supervise the work on the oontraot. Ha was to receive JE2 8* and found. His brother was present when this arrange-, ment was entered into. Witness was quite Bure that Mr Harvey had promised to give him (plainlifl) £2 8s aad tucker j this arrangement had been made at the British Empire Hotel. By Mr Blair; This conversation took place beforo the work. Witness went to work for defendant on another job at Pouawa ; on that job witness wa3 gsttiog la an hour ODd paying 12 j per week for food. Witness’ average earniDgs on the Pouawa job would be less than 8 i per day. Aftor Pouawa defendant got the fenoing oontraot, which witness supervised. Witness offered to take this fenoing at lU9 per mile. This prioo was for erecting only. Defendant did not then say, “ Slave, if you can do that I’ll obuck the tucker in.” Witness supervised tbe fencing to the best of his ability. The rest of the men were paid Is per hour. There wero sometimes six and sometimes

threo on the fencing. Witness understood he was in ehargo of the men, and defendant was not looking after the job and did not, to witness’ knowledge, do any of the work. Witness was sent back along the fence three or four times bocauso the work was not passed. It took about a fortnight to go over this work again. After this happened defendant was present all the time, but did not tell witness ho had taken over the supervision. The whole job cost j £93, which was over £2O per mile. By Mr Stock: The defendant placed witness in charge of tho work to soo that it was properly done. William Agustus Priestley, caretaker of Park Piacecourse, was present when tho arrangements was made between the parties at tho British Empire Hotel, with reference to the fencing. Witness said that defendant had promised plaintiff to give him 8s per day and find him in tucker; and had further told his brother (plaintiff) that ho looked to him as head man to see tho work carried out. Defendant also said he would lay the fence line and do the splitting. Defendant then turned to witness and said, “ that , ought to suit him.” Plaintiff thereupon i agreed to the arrangement. ) ByMcßlt ir: Witness did not hear any i other conversation between the parties, i John Thomas Harvey, uontraotor, de* ■ 'Cendant, said plaintiff (Priestley) hal • worked for him at Pouawa at Is an hoar,

I finding himself. Before this a fcondor of I witness’ had boon accepted by tho County I County for fonaiug. Plaintiff wont with I wituoss to estimate tho job, and thoy both I agreed that tho fencing Ouiild bo done at from Ll 6to Ll 9 por mile, Witness saw plaintiff at tjo British Empire Hotel, I and showod him tho (.mount of tender for tho work and plaintiff sail it was a good prioo. Wituoss Ikon ongagodjtiim to go to I tho Pourtwa job at Is por hour and pay 12s for his tuokor. Wituoss also ongagod plaintiff for tho fonoing contract at 8s a day. and said if ho (plaintiff) could dn this work os stated at LlB or Ll 9 per mile, witness would throw tho tuokor in. Just iboa plaintiff’s brother oamo np. NVitnos- 1 to'd plaintiff's brother that ho (witness) agreed to pay dofoudont 8j por day and throw tuokor in if tho fencing was donofor

LlB or Ll 9 por mdo. Thorn was not the slightest douht about this, Wituoss hoped Jho woik would bo done at this prise. I whioh would have given wituoss a margin sufficient to allow for tho tucker. Tho meu usually found tuokor themselves. Too first 225 chains of fencing oout close on L2O pur mile; tho last milo and a quarter was done for loss than Ll 9, Tho whole of tho fonoing avoragod a liitlo over L 24 por mile. Witness had to send tho man back throo or four times. Aftsr this witness took oharge of tho job and supervised it himself.

By Mr Stack: Priostloy and witness when ootimatiog tho job thought tho fencing could bo douo as Ll 9 per milr. By his Worship : Ho (dofoudont) was quite sure thus ho only offered to throw in sha tucker if tho fonoing was dono at Ll 9 per mils. By Mr Siook : Witness had told plaintiff when settling up that ho would bo surprised at She amount he got. Ho did not tell plaintiff during the timo ho was working for witnoss that ho (plaintiff) was not to receive his tucker, as he did not think

it necessary, After counsel had addressed the Bonoh, his Worship said though tho evidenoa was conflicting, ha behoved tho witnesses were all telliog tho truth according to what they believed. He thought it hardly likely, however, defendant did enter into an arrangement as mentioned, He would give a verdict for plaintiff for the amouDt paid into Court, 13s, acd costs ss, tho claim for L 9 being disallowod. Defendant was allowed LI Is, Boliciior’s fee.