CLAIM FOR WAGES.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2233, 3 July 1908, Page 2

CLAIM FOR WAGES.

JOHNSTONE V. DesBARRES. VERDICT FOR THE DEFENDANT At the. Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning the hearing of the case was taken in which Grahame Jolintone proceeded against Fredrick b. JJesßarres for the recovery oi £lßl 2s being the balance of wages due to him for services rendered during the period from Slav lOtli 1906 to Slay 31st 11)03.

Mr T. Alston Coleman appeared for the plaintiff and Sir (J. ctock for defendant.

Orahame Johnstone, tho plaintiff, said that he entered defendant’s service on Slay 10th, 1900 at a salary of £2 weekly and a commission '..it. of sales, lie continued in defendant’s employment until 31st Slav, 1908, and lind never had notice tint his services would be dispensed with. Defendant was secretary of the Farmers I’nion, and once or twieo plaintiff took the minutes of tho meetings in defendants’ absence. The present secretary of the Farmers Cnion was appointed on Slav 10, 1908. Up to the time of the appointment witness attended to the business of the Farmers’ Union under instructions horn defendant, collecting accounts, etc. Witness was transacting tho business in tlie Farmers’ Union Club rooms. About the end of October, or the beginning of November last, defendant left the district. Ho came into tlio office the day ho left and told plaintiff that ho was going to Wellington on business for a month or six weeks. Witness was to take full charge of everything while defendant was away. Nothing was said on this occasion 'about witness being discharged. Defendant returned about the 13th of May 1908. Witness saw him the s ime day and said to him, “Fred, can you let me have £3O, as I have had no wages from you for some time, and am short?” Defendant replied that lie did not know how his bunking account stood, but ho promised to see witness on tho following Saturday. Oil Saturday defendant said that he could not- lot witness have tho money, and witness replied that he must bavo it. In January 1907 witness made two sale 6 of sheep on behalf of defendant Ho also brought a settler in from Hungarian in 190 G and asked him to put his property in defendant’s hands for ■ le. Under defendant’s instructions

‘tiess took a buyer to the llangaproperty and defondant supplied the horses and provided expenses. For the time for which lie claimed wages, he devoted his- whole time to defendant’s business. His only other occupation was secretary of the Shcepfarmersand Drovers Association and he took the billet on tho advice of defendant, who said that ho was thinking of relinquishing the secretaryship of the Farmers’ Union and advised witness to apply for it. The moneys as shown in tho credits Oy plaintiff were only paid to him at hi* request. To Mr Stock: Ho had also done tallying work for tho Sheep farmers Company dining the period he was in defendant’ employ. Did not tell Mr Cederwall that ho was oat of n job :rnd asked him for work. Witness went to Wi'liams and Kettle and various other firms looking for work because ho wanted a bettor job. Defendant got no salary as secretary of tho Fa rule: s Union except office rent free and 10 per cent on subscription received. Defendant had accused him of embezzling money collected for the Farmers’ Union, but witness did not say that he would owe defendant £3 12s. which he was unable fo account for. Defendant had often asked him why ho did not go droving again.- The amount which lie paid to witness alter the sale of White’s sheep was not on commission, but on aac.iunt of hack wages. He did not on any occasion get money from defendant to take prospective buyers to view properties, and fail to do so, nor did ho fail to refund any mu h main v. Witness could not say what defendant’s earnings were as a stock and land agent. Re-examined by Mr Coleman : Defendant was often away and witness then was in charge of tho office. William Douglas Lysnar said that he was chairman of the Gisborne branch of tho Farmers’ Union.. Defendant told him that he was going away for a trip and said that plaintiff would attend to tho work during his absence. To Mr. Stock: He bad an interview with defendant on his return and asked him how plaintiff had got mi and witness replied, “Not very satisfactorily.” Ewen Alfred Jackson, shoepfarmer, Uangaroa. said he had placed lis property in defendant’s hands for sale about August 1900. At tho end of November 1900, plaintiff brought a man t 0 look at the place. This concluded tho evidence for the plaintiff and Mr Stock addressed tho Court on behalf of defendant and called

Frederick S. Dcsßarre6, who said that lie commenced business on April 23rd, 1906. Ho engaged plaintiff to come to his office at a wage of about £2 weekly, but no mention was made of any commission. On account of not doing any business witness became dissatisfied and-on July 14 told plaintiff to get another billet. (Subsequently defendant told him of several places where he had been trying to get a billet. On one occasion plaintiff collected £6 18s and brought the list into tho office. Witness looked at the list and at the money and saw there was a shortage of £3 12s. He asked plaintiff what about it -anil he made a pretence of looking in all his pockets and finally said that he would have to owe it t 0 witness. Plaintiff never mentioned salary on any occasion, but an agreement was made regarding commission on any business plaintiff might bring to the office. V hen plaintiff got married he told witness that he was going to go in for poultry farming. The average earnings of his business for tho two years would not be more than 3d per week. Plaintiff siw witness the morning he returned from his trip and plaintiff asked him if he could let him have £3O. Witness laughed, and said that he had no money for him. On the following Saturday plaintiff again asked him for money and was again refused. To Mr Coleman: When ho left on his trip the funds of the Farmers’ Union were in perfect order. William Frederick Cederwall stated that plaintiff had come to him, said that he was doing nothing, and asked for a billet. M. F. Foster and Albert S. Evans gave similar evidence. This concluded the case for the defendant and. Counsel addressed the Court. His Worship said that the evidence was most unsatisfactory and he thought that plaintiff could not succeed. He could hardly think Hat plaintiff would go on for such a long time believing himself to be in defendant's employ without making some claim for wages. Judgment would bo for the defendant with costs of Court -Is and solicitors fees £9 Is.