MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 25 November 1931, Page 5

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

GREYMOUTH, November go. Business dealt with by Mr Meldriim, S.M., yesterday included the following:— WAGES CLAIM FAILS. The wages claim for £l5O by Thomas and Margaret Mirland (Mr T F. Brosnan) against John A. Hart, contractor, of Greymouth (Mr J. W. Hannan), heard at the Magistrate’s Court, Greymouth, on October 13th, before Mr W. Meldrum S.M., and again on October 27th, when J.djision was reserved, was continued. Evidence was given of the value of the services rendered by the plaintiffs. The Magistrate said the claim was one ' which had to be decided on the value of services. Tlie claim arose out of am alleged, but disputed, agreement as to an increase in wages, of £2 per. week, to be paid whilst the plaintiffs' were employed as a married couple on defendant’s farm at Koiterangi. The plaintiff, Thomas Morland, gave evidence, as to the work done between March 1929 and 1930, by witness. The valine placed; on a .man’s work for driving a tractor was 1/6 per hour. He enumerated the various works carried out on the farm during. the period, since the alleged agreement was reached to pay the £2 a week extra. This concluded the evidence for plaintiff. Peter Joseph McLean stated he owned a farm property at Harihari on which he lmd a married couple, whom he was paying £4 per week at present. He had previously paid tnem £4/10/-, but it had been reduced to £4 at the request of his manager, Mr Hart must have been very generous to pay £6 per week to plaintiff, ,

Wm, Clayton, farmer, of Ahaura, said £3/15/- to £4 per week was the usual wage to he paid to married couples on farms. He said £6 was a very generous wage. ! '

Pryoe Hamer, farmer, of Totara Flat, stated ho had farmed on the West Coast' for 20 years. He employed a married couple on his farm. He paid £3/10/- a week to them. He was carrying a stock of 300 or 400 sheep and 150 head of cattle. He had not heard of anybody being paid £6 a week before. He had no knowledge however, of such a farm as defendant’s. Mr Brosnan addressed the Court at length, after which the Magistrate intimated that he did not require to call on Mr Hannan.

The Magistrate said there was : a conflict as to the exact terms on which a proportionate increase in salary was come to between the two. If, on the facts submitted, he could come to the conclusion that the work of piaintitt was worth the amount, then plaintiff was entitled 'to judgment for the amount, but it seemed clearly that plaintiff received full value for the work done during that eighteen months. He did not need to go into the reason actuating Mr Hart making a conditional offer i Had the price of butter fat kept up, it wpuld hq,ye beeii quite possible that the estimated credit fl'om the farm would exceed £12,000. Unfortunately there was tv general fall in prices, During the eighteen months the farm went back in profits, also in the amount of production of butter fat and fat stock. Plaintiff, however, claimed to re" ceive £8 per week for a period of eighteen months, stating he had put in extra work, which did not form his ordinary employment. Witnesses, however, said this work would be included in the work of a manager. The point to'decide was plainly whether, during the eighteen months, the plaintiff was paid a reasonable remuneration for his services. On the evidence, he was paid a very high price, and evidence had not disclosed that plaintiff had not received full value for his work. Judgment would therefore be for defendant.

Mr Hannan applied for costs, and these were allowed, plaintiff also to pa v witnesses’ expenses and court costs according to scale, the solicitors’ fees totalling £ll/14/—£2/2/- for each of the hearings, and £7/10/- on the judgment, UNION DUES UNPAID. The Westland Timber Yards and Sawmills Industrial Union of Workers (Mr T. F. Brosnau) sought to recover from A. L. Sutherland, of Hokitika, sawmill employee (Mr J. W. Hannan), the sum of £2 6s, being Union dues up till June 1931, payable half yearly in advance; also 10/-, the amount of fine levied on the defendant by the Union in accordance with its rules on June 13th, 1931, a total of £2 lbs.

The Magistrate said there was no doubt that defendant joined the Union to get the work, and after seven weeks were up, he stated, he wrote to the Union Secretary, who denied that he did. He did not register the letter. His reason for not sending • for his clearance through the delegate, was that he was in Hokitika, and he did not. bother further. It seemed possible to His Worship the defendant might have forgotten to post the letter. He must hold that defendant was still a member of the Union jii) to June 193t> The fine appeared to have been inflicted on defendant without giving him n chance of appearing. Being a member of the Union, he apparently received notices, however, and his father apparently dealt with the correspondence, and it appeared be connived with his father in dealing with the correspondence, and who received the notice of the fine, which wa* not sent on to Defendant- nr st, be held liable and judgment would be for the plaintiff Union for the 10/- with Court costs 10/-. The Westland Timber Workers’ Union also sought to recover the sum of £l/6/- from Wm. Teague, of Greymonth. sawmill employee, being Union duos on till December 31st, 1931. The plaintiff Union also claimed 10/-. being amount of fine levied by the Union, a total of £l/16/-,

Judgment was entered for plaintiff for £l/16/-, and costs 8/-.

PLAINTIFF THE LOSER.

CLAIM AND COUNTER-CLAIM.

, (Reserved judgment was given in tho claim, Gordon Francis MacDonald, butcher, of Greymouth (Mr T. E. Brosnan) v. John Richard Wallace, butcher, also of Greymouth '(Mr J. W. Hannan), which was heard on November 10th, when plaintiff claimed £57 12s as wages underpaid; from May 9, 1931_t0 August 8, 1931, a/t the rate of £2 10s 6d. Giving his decision,; the Magistrate said that plaintiff claimed £57 12s, with the exception of £4 'los 6d, being wages underpaid in accordance with the award, and £4 10s 6d as a week’s wages, because he had not received notice. Defendant had said he had mereiy hawked the meat around, but the Act laid it i down that a hawker came within the award, and therefore the plaintiff was entitled to judgment. Regarding the counter claim, defendant was in the hospital for a time, and plaintiff carried on the business and kept the mon-/ ies for what he had sold and failed to account for these, to defendant, namely £75 15s. These monies were not disputed and came into plaintiff’s possession and were not paid over to de-. fendant, who was entitled to succeed on the counter claim and judgment would be for defendant accordingly ; that was to say, judgment would be entered for defendant for the balance above the claim by defendant, namely £22 3s, and the fuil costs of the action according to scale, on the £75, .and solicitor’s fee £3 3s, with witness’s expenses 15s, COMPENSATION CASE, , A claim was made by Edward Gallop, sawmill employee of Ahaura (Mr T. F. Brosnan) for £3.14s from Gustav and Gus. John Hahn, sawmillers of Ahaura (Mr F. A. Kitchirigham) as compensation arising out of an accident in the de- t fondant's sawmill at. Ahaura. ■

The defendants denied that plaintiff’s average weekly earnings;, at the time of the ‘.accident ■ were more than £2 Os ,6d,. under the Workers' . Compensation Act, claiming .. .'they had paid the full amount of . compensation to which plaintiff was entitled. The Magistrate said it seemed to him that the objection of the Act was that compensation should be based on the normal week’s work. In ordinary circumstances where a. trade, such., as the timber trade' was.' working normally, no question arose, brit unfortunately, the sawmills had suffered slackness of trade. 'Some had closed. down, whilst others were working bad 'time, though some were working good time. The question was, whather in the present case, compensation should be. fixed, by the actual time the worker , had worked, and his weekly earnings. Ho did not think , the Statute considered that that course shofild be adopted, . as it was not ■ a fair one. Although . not working, for his employer, plaintiff had been holding himself in readiinesst for work and -it was, not th’s fault that he did* not work full time. That, he thought, threw a little light on how mattersi ■should be juterpretod. During the month of May, 1931, the mill did not work full time, and if the accident had happened at the'end of the month plaintiff would have worked his full time. On the authorities quoted, compensation was to be based upon average weekly earnings* for a normal week’s work. A normal' week’s work, it was admitted, was.-:s*igfc of. 48-w*, hours, six days a week at l6s;| a day, and . that seemed ito dispose of it under the Act, on authorities quoted. Judgment would be entered , _ accordingly for plaintiff, for £3 l'4s, with solicitors’ fees £1 6s, and witness’s expenses, 18s. There were no Court costs. N