MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 21 October 1932, Page 4

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

CASES HEARD BY MR MELDRUM. In the Magistrate’s Court this morning, the following business was transacted before Air Meldrum, S.M. Judgment Summons Case. In a judgment summons case, AVe.sc Coast Motors sought to recover from T. Muir the sum of £2B, but no order was made. Variation of Order Refused. AV. Thompson, sought a variation in his maintenance order, in respect of £ls arrears. Katherine Coxhail, opposed ,the application, saying ifnat she had been keeping her daughter’s child who had been in hospital for a long time, and for whom witness was paying. The Magistrate dismissed the order and applicant was ordered to pay costs. Maintenance Order Disobeyed. Albert Edward Bently was charged with disobedience of Ills maintenance order in respect to his wife and family. Mr Murdoch said that the payments were £45/10/- in arrears, and defendant was now living with another woman by whom there were two children. The Clerk of the Court said that on July 7, certain arrears were then remitted, leaving £SO outstanding. On the application of Mr Murdoch the case was adjourned. A Claim for Wages.

Oliver Jiohinson (Mr A. 11. E]cock) v. Alfred Malpolin Capieron (Mr JLqsnnp), coughf to recover the sup; of £29/5/- being due as wages, Robinson said that he had been engaged driving a lorry for Mr Nancekivcil, and, generally, managed the carting side of the business. He was earning £6/15/- a week for the six months prior to the cartage business being taken over by Cameron in June. Mr Nancekivell told him to carry on just the same under Cameron, but nothing was mentioned regarding the rate of pay. Later, witness, at defendant’s request, sent in his time sheet, and claimed £2O/5/- qr 22/6 a day, the same rate that Mr Nancekivell had paid. Of this amount, which was not then disputed, £5 had been paid, while a further £7/16/- had also been settled.

To Mr Brosnan, plaintiff said that his claim had been made to Mr Nancekivell who passed it on to Cameron. Considerable evidence was given regarding dates of contracts, and conversations between plaintiff and defendant regarding the contract. To Mr Brosnan, immediately after Cameron taking over the cartage business, plaintiff 'said' he was not sure whether he was working for Mr Nancekivell or Cameron, Mr Brosnan: Did Cameron not refuse to pay you 22s Cd a day ?—No.

Mr Brosnon: What is the award wage?—l4s or los a clay. Mr Brosnnn: You also kept the accounts of the business?—Yes. My Brcsnan produced the time sheet regarding the contract in June in connection with the case, and said there were discrepancies in the actual time, plaintiff saying that they were merely approximate figures, Arthur Nanoekivell, of the Railway Hotel, said that he had managed the carting business, and Robinson had been in his employ for two years. In June lie and Cameron entered into an. arrangement which was rather complicated, whereby Cameron took over the business as from June 1, Witness toll defendant the wage plaintiff was getting, and said that it would not he possible to get a man to do all the necessary work.

Mr Brosnnn said that much evolved upon the transfer of the Leyland motor from witness to defendant. Defendant said lie interviewed plaintiff on June 5 in connnection with the transfer of control in the business, and said that he would l pay him a fair thing, the work being contract, but held that he could not possibly pay him what. Mr Nanoekivell had been doing. Robinson agreed to the duties which were those of an ordinary lorry driver. The job ended on June 25 when he asked plaintiff for his time, the latter saying that there was no lmrry as he had plenty of money, and the account was not isent until July. Taking into account the amount cf work to be done, he considered that he had paid Robinson more than be" was entitled to. Mr Brosnnn said that it was a matter of settling what was a fair wage, considering tile fact that his work with Cameron was not so onerous as before.

The Magistrate said that three of the days’ work claimed should not have been made against defendant. Cameron had made no new arrangements regarding the wages paid by Nancokivell to plaintiff, and he considered that Robinson had every rieht to come info Court and claim. Judgment w:>is given for plaintiff for £4 Is 6d (the rpiount of the claim, lie«s amount already paid, less amount of three days not due to defendant), and costs.