CONTRACT OR WAGES.

Gisborne Times, Volume XLV, Issue 3977, 9 July 1915, Page 7

CONTRACT OR WAGES.

A SCRUB-CUTTING DISPUTE. PLAINTIFFS ELECT TO TAKE A NON-SUIT. The attention of Air AV. A. Barton S.M., was occupied for upwards oi three hours yesterday afternoon inquiring into a. claim made for a scrubcutting contract at Parikanapa. David Lucas and Henry Smith proceeded separately against Frederick John Lysnar, proprietor of Parinanapa station, to recover the sum of £54 3s, being wages for 722 hours’ work done at Parikanapa station at the rate of Is Gd per hour. Air Finn appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr Burnard for the defendants. It was agreed that the cases should be taken together. Air Finn outlined the case and called . David Lucas, the plaintiff, said ho was engaged by Air Hilton Lysnar, manager for Air Frederick Lysnar, oi Parikanapa station. Prior to April 7 witness was working lor defendant. They wore engaged at the rate of Is Gd per hour, and continued on at that rate of pay until March 1. On March 2 they were working on a block known as No. 9, at Is Gd per hour. On that date Air Hilton Lysnar came to them and said ho was sorry, but he had received instructions to put all hands off. Air Lysnar said lie would like to meet witness and bis mate at the station, as lie had a small block loft right in the. heart of No. 9. He offered witness and his mate £3O to cut out this block, which consisted of from 25 to 30 acres. Witness and his friend decided to take the contract, and did the work, which was passed by Mr Hilton Lysnar. On March 26* witness went to Air Hilton Lysnar for a settlement and ho told him to call back next- day. Mr Lysnar asked witness how much he wanted, and witness said £2O would do in the meantime. Air Lysnar said that would leave a balance of £9 9s owing to witness. Air Lysnar paid the £2O and the £9 9s was owing. Witness came to Gisborne, arriving on Alarch 26, and returned to Parikanapa on April 7. Witness and his mate Parry, on Alarch 2G, had an interview with Air Hilton Lysnar, and agreed j to take a contact to fall a block of i bush which had not been surveyed. I They started to erect a camp, and witness, Parrv, and Smith started on I the job on April 7. They started the { job on the understanding with Mr Lysnar that when the block was surveyed they were to be paid 25s per acre. There were no written specification, and only manuka was to lie felled. They worked on the contract for about a fortnight. A disagreement then took place between witness and Parry, while Smith and Parry also fell out. On April 27 Parry leit, saying there was not enough in it for him. They all went up to see Mr Lysnar on April 27, and asked him what they could do. Mr Lysnar said he wanted the block cut out-, and they asked hint if it would bo surveyed. He said he had tried to get a surveyor but had been unable to do so. Mr Lysnar then said that the best thing they could do was to go back and work at the jub at the rate of Is Gd per hour. Mr Lysnar said they would not be the losers for the work they had already done. Smith and witness then decided to go on with the work at Is Gd an hour. They continued to work at the job until Juue 17. The amount showed in the claim was correct. Witness received a telephone message asking them to come into town by the coach and meet him at Aliller’s corner on June 18. When they got to town Air Lysnar was not at the appointed place. Later in the same day they mot Air Hilton Lysnar, who said lie" was going to the office to fix them up. They waited at the same spot, but- Air Lysnar did not come back. Thfey told Air Hilton Lysnar that they were each claiming for 722 hours at Is Gd per hour. Air Lysnar said he did not know about* this, but offered them £2 10s a week each, with tucker and tents free. Afr Lysnar then said that if they could prove that they had worked the hours claimed lie would sec that they wore j paid. On the following Wednesday ; they saw Air Hilton Lysnar again, and he left them at Hannah’s corner, saying. “Well, chaps, l am going away now to fix your accounts up and give you a cheque.” He promised to niece them in an hour’s time at Aliller’s corner, but did not turn up, and witness did not see him again until that day in Court. Witness had worked the. full hours stated in the claim. By Air Burnard: AVitness was engaged by Air Lysnar to help Maoris to cut out a contract. Rutone Takinn kept their time. They used to work 114 hours a day. getting up about 4.30 and starting work at 6 a.m. At 10.30 they would have a spell for half-an-hour, and then work for another four hours, when they would have another half-hour’s smoke-oil. They kept working until dark, and used to go to,work and return with lamps. Their watches were put. back an hour, to < enable them to get the advantage of the early morning light. It was light at 5 o’clock in the month of June. Air Burnard: As a matter of fact, while you were at Parikanapa you cut about 25 acres. Witness: We cut hot ween SO and 90 acres. Continuing under cross-examination witness said each man could do from three to four acres a week. They recorded their time each night in a i book. Air Lysnar agreed that they j should keep their own time. His Worship: A very unsatisfactory ; method for the employer I should j think. j Continuing, witness said that Smith told Airs Hilton Lysnar that ho was a Naval Reserve man, and was going to join the colors. Witness disputed j that lie had received goods to the value of £22 2s 9d. Alt they would : be indebted to Air Lysnar would ho j about £6 oV £7 per man. Mr Burnard: Well why did you not give credit for that in your statement of claim.

Witness: Hoiv could wo give credit when we had no money in our pockets ? His Worship: Oh, you could .have given credit for the amount all right. It is not a question of paying out money. To Mr Finn : They had only meat, flour, and sugar from Mr Lysnar, and latterly could not get stores. Mr Lysnar was never on the job to witness’ knowledge. Witness and Smith kept their time on a piece of papey, hut it got very dirty, and they copied the hours into a book before they left. His Worship: I would/rather have the dirty sheet than the clean book. Henry Smith, a mate of the plaintiff’s, corroborated toe evidence of the plaintiff. One of the reasons they threw up the original contract after Parry left was because it was dangerous for only two men to work in such rough country. The ground was full of holes made by pigs rooting. Witness left Parikanapa because lie wished to go to the front. Ho warned Mr Lysnar a fortnight before that he wanted to get away, and Mr Lysnar said as soon as he wanted to go he would let him off. During the past few weeks they could not get sufficient stores at tile station. By Mr Burnard : Witness considered it was more dangerous for two men to cub scrub than three, as it would be very difficult for one man to bring bis mate out over such rough country if an accident He was not afraid of attacks from pigs. The reasons witness came away was because he wanted to go to the front. When they first made the claim for 722 hours Mr, Lysnar did not dispute it, and said he would pay it.' Ho considered they -had cut between 80 and 90 acres, out of the whole block of about 100 acres. They honestly worked, the whole time claimed for. Rutene Takina said he had worked for Mr Lysnar, both at contract work and bv the hqpf, : He knew the plain- j tiff, ' and had seen him working; at

Parikanapa. It was no more dangerous for two men to work together at scrub cutting than for three. It was as bad for one as for ten. AVitness had seen the work done by plaintiffs and would consider that they had cut between 40 and 50 acres. By Air Burnard: Twenty-five shillings an acre for scrub-cutting was a fair price. To Mr Finn : AVitness bad finished a contract of scrub-cutting for Air Lysnar at Parikanapa, but had not yet been paid. He was going in to get paid He did not know' that there were several natives whose claims were disputed by Mr Lysnar. That had nothing to do with him. This concluded the case for the plaintiffs. Mr Burnard, for the defence, said that the plaintiffs’ story was a most improbable one. It would be difficult to imagine that a station-owner would make an arrangement with workmen to work at so much per hour, and then allow them to keep their own time. He contended that it would bo impossible for men to have worked the hours plaintiff claimed) they did ill the middle of winter. Air. Burnard intimated that defendant was quite prepared to pay the plaintiffs for what they had cut at 25s per aero. The area could he determined by a surveyor chosen if necessary by the plaintiffs.

Hilton N. Lysnar, manager for plaintiff, detailed the arrangements made with the plaintiffs. Lucas and Smith came bo witness and said that Parry was leaving, but that they were quite prepared to carry it on and complete it. AVitness told them to go ahead and finish it. If a man were put on time, it would be necessary to have someone check the time. You could not accept a. man’s word. While in town witness received a telephone message from his wife stating that Smith was a R.N.R. man, and wished to proceed to the front. Witness told Airs Lysnar that if Smith wanted to get away, he would not prevent him, and told her to send him to town and he would pay him. There was never any suggestion that payment was to be made by time, nor was mention ever , made of Is Gd per hour.

By All' Finn : Some of the blocks Jiad been cut by wages. The reason witness did not have a written agreement was because lie had had previous deal ings with Lucas and Smith before and had found them straight. The evidence given by the plaintiffs as-to the conversations they had bad with witness was absolutely false. AVitness did not promise to settle up with the plaintiffs, as the accounts were up at the station. Hp estimated that the plaintiffs had cut at the outside about 30 acres.

Peter Parry, general laborer, gave bis version of the agreements. AVhen he told. Lucas and Smith that- he was leaving they told him that they were going to finish it themselves. By Mr Finn : AVitness did not part from Lucas and Smith on the best of terms.

Alaria Hotene said that her husband was working oil a scrub-cutting contract at Parikanapa and witness was with him. AVitness used to see Lucas and Smith frequently at work at Parikanapa. They used to come round to her husband’s tent, and have a talk. They said they were getting 25s an acre, hut could not tell how much they had cut because the block had not been surveyed. They said they were working blind, and could not tell how Kiuch they had made. By Mr Finn: Air Lysnar told witness to come to the Court. Witness had been staying at Parikanapa with Mrs Hilton Lvsnar.

Frederick .John Lysnar, sheepfarmor, the defendant, said that Air Hilton Lysnar had full power to draw on witness’ account for any amount he liked. Rutene Takinn, recalled by Air Finn, said that lie had been engaged by Alt' Lysnar scrub-cutting at both contract and wages. On wages he received Is Gd per hour. ~ He had £26 coming to him for hour work. Air Lysnar knew that he paid all men, including Lucas, engaged on block 9 were paid Is Gd! per hour for scrub-cutting. His AVorship said the question in the case was whether the payment should be by per acre or at so much per hour. He was of opinion that the first arrangement was never departed from. His AVorship intimated that he would withhold judgment until the area which plaintiffs had cut had been surveyed. Mr Finn, at this stage, intimated that lie elected to take a non-suit in both cases. His AVorship accordingly non-suited plain!iff in the case of Lucas v. Lysnar. with costs £3 18s, and also recorded a non-suit in the other case, with costs £2 14s. Air Finn intimated that this would not prejudice plaintiff's right to take further proceedings in this or any other Court.