MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXV, Issue 4716, 25 June 1924, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

MONDAY, JUNE 23, 1924. (Before Mr J. H. Salmon, S.M.) CLAIM FOR WAGES. At the Magistrate’s Court, Paeroa, on Monday, before Mr J. H. Salmon, S.M., Thomas James Barton (Mr R. S. Carden) claimed from Paul Paulsen (Mr C. N. O’Neill) the sum o£ £9, alleged to be due as three weeks’ wages at the rate of £3 per week. • T. J. Barton, labourer, the plaintiff in the case, said the amount claimed wa« due to him as wages for work done at the request of defendant on a farm belonging to defendant and witness’ brother, W. M. Barton, at Netherton.

Jn cross-examination by M r O’Neill plaintiff said that he had applied to the defendant for the money due to him, but had been unable to obtain a settlement. Some of the money due was for milking and work done on the f,arm while defendant went to Auckland. He admitted that it was more or less a custom for settlers t<relieve one another on the farms without payment. To Mr Carden plaintiff said he had been engaged to do the work by W. M. Bartoni for the partnership of Barton and Paulsen.

W. M. Barton said that he had been in partnership with defendant for about five years. Defnedant had gone to Auckland on several occasions, and it had been necessary to get assistance to milk 7.1 cows. Plaintiff had also assisted with the hay-making. He thought £3 a week and keep was a fair wage to expect for casual milking during the flush of the season. To Mr O’Neill witness stated that he did not know what arrangements had been made as to the amount of wages to be paid to plaintiff. His Worship recalled plaintiff and questioned him regarding his statement that he had made a demand of defendant for the wages. His Worship said that stale claims for wages were always viewed with suspicion. Tn view of the previous case he was inclined to think that the claim had been brought out of malice. He was of the opinion that plaintiff had been very well treated on his return from the war. Taking the facts into consideration, plaintiff would be nonsuited, and costs, £1 Is, would be given against him.