CLAIM FOR WAGES.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2088, 24 May 1907, Page 2

CLAIM FOR WAGES.

Press Association. DUNEDIN, last night. At the Supreme Court before Mr. Justice AVilliams was heard the case 1 in which the plaintiffs, Henry and Margaret Brown, sought judgment for £476 from the defendant, John Frodk. AA’oodhouse, as executor of the will of Elizabeth Ure, deceased, The statement of claim set forth that in May, 1899, -plaintiff Henry' -Brown was engaged by Mrs. Ure asrt resident coachman and gardener at; 30s a week with an allowance of 10s a week for his horse. In November. 1900, plaintiff Margaret Brown went at Mrs. Ure’s request to reside with, her, remaining there until Mrs. Ure’s death on 9tli November, 1905. In April, 1901, Mrs. Ure became paralysed and, requiring close attention, promised plaintiffs adequate remuneration for their services in addition to plaintiff Henry Brown’s wages and'L the allowance aforesaid. Mrs. Ure remained paralysed until her death, being attended to by plaintiffs, whoso duties were of a very exacting and arduous nature, requiring constant attention day and night. For these services plaintiffs- were paid nothing and therefore asked for judgment for £476, lining 23S weeks from . 21st April, 1901, to 9th November, 1905, at the rate of £2 per week. The statement of defenco sot out that when Mrs. Ure died defendant was aware of tlio residence of Margaret Brown with Mrs, Ure at tlio latter’s request from November, 1900, to November, 1905. Ho had admitted having promised Henry Brown (with Mrs. Ure’s authority) that ho would receive additional remuneration, no amount being {stated, if he remained with her after her being paralysed. Defendant also «u- - mitted that plaintiffs remained with i Airs. Ure until her death and received no remuneration beyond Henry Brown’s wages as gardener and coachman, and his allowance for his horse. Defendant affirmed, however, that tho additional remuneration of £2 per week would have been excessive. Alter hearing evidence His Honor said: " On the whole, I think that, looking at tho length of time tilings have gone on and at the fact that Brown was' practically indispensiblo to Airs, lire and could have made his bargain on practically what he choose, he is entitled to recover ' the amount lie claims.” Air. Ilosking pointed out that the tho dale from which plaintiffs’ claim proved to he for six weeks later than was dated. His Honor accordingly gave plaintiff judgment for £465 with costs as per scale, with witnesses! expenses and disbursements. His Honor added that Air. AVoodliouso was quite right-in bringing the question of the amount before tho Court—he could not have done other--:-* wise in view of the fact that the duarv legatee had objected to tho amount.