CLAIM FOR WAGES.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIX, Issue 5309, 6 August 1928, Page 1

CLAIM FOR WAGES.

KOMATA BUSH CASE.

counter-claim non-suited.

A great deal of time was takeji up at the local Magistrate’s Court on Thursday, before Mr F. W- Platts, S.M., when C. R. Lloyd (Mr R. S. Carden), bushman, Komata, proceeded against Henry Goble, farmer, Nctlijerr ■ton, 'and claimed £l3 10,s, for wage's and hire of a team of bullocks at the rate of 3Qs a day for nine days.

The defendant admitted tha,t the sum of £ll 4s Id was due by him to plaintiff, and he counteh-claimlpd to the amount of £4O 19s 8d for grazing supplied at plaintiff’s request for. 19 bullocks at 2s a head from Ocfobei 8, 1927, to March 7, 1928. Cecil R. ■ Lloyd, buslh contractor, said that he had entered into an arrangement with ! the defendant to carry out. certain, logging operations. A period of 8% days was worked with a team of bullocks. To complete the: job it had taken nine days, half a day of that time being spent in gathering together gear and other jvork nt the completion of the job.

Henry Goble, defendant, stated that thje, arrangement had been made with plaintiff’s brother, but nothing had been said about an extra half-day being paid for. during the cleaning-up process.

Proceeding with the counter-claim, Mr O’Neill stated that defendant had purchasjed a block of timber, country and) intended using the land as a runoff. However, a man named S. Trotter persuaded him to cut the bush for timber.

Henry Goble- said that in June, 1927, 'he a,nd> a man named Trotter purchased 399 acres of country at Komata. There was no intention of milling the timber, until some time® afterwards it was decidet that Trotter should mill the timber white lie looked after the stock. In response to an advertisement plaintiff’s father, C. E. Lloyd, agreed to pay one shilling a hundred super.feet for thfc timben Witness said he had nothing to. do with the arrangements ma.de for. the buslh felling, although he knew that Lloyd and his son had been engaged to fell bush and out s,cTUb. Eaten on Trotter sold his half-share of the property to a man named Revell, who took over Trotter’s arrangements. Plaintiff later, worked for. Revell on completion of the scrub-cutting contract for witness. Witness said he arranged with plaintiff’s father to graze the bullocks at 2s, a head' a week, provided the cattle wfere 'off the place before the end of December. When the bullocks arrived from Tuakau they were placed on his Komata. property, but no demand was! made for gra.zing the bullocks until later on.

To Mr. Carden witness said that he had not made a demand for. grazing, ■until May of this year bee,a,use the Lloyds never had any money. He, denied that, the Lloyds had worked for him in lieu of payment for gra.zing. Stanley Trotter said that in June and July of last year he was; partowner of 399 acres with Goble. He ha.d sole change. of the bush and timber, but had . nothing to. do with the grazing.

C. R. Lloyd said that he had entered into a, bush contract in October with Goble. In September he had taken on a log-hauling, job for a man named Revell, and the arirangem|eht entered into provided for free grazing. When Revell left the partnership Goble was asked by witness’ father if he would give free grazing. Goble replied! that, he did not mind so long as the animals were off the. place by the end of December. He and his brother, had given Goble a full day’s work with a team of bullocks in return for the grazing.. Later he entered into a wages job with Gjoble, but had not received any money, with the exception of £1 which Goble had given him in the street at Paeroa.

P. E. Lloyd also gav|e evidence of a corroborative nature.

The magistrate said that so far. as the, claim was concerned! there was a matter of 15s difference between the parties. Plaintiff was not entitled to recover, the amount.

Referring to the counter-claim, the. magistrate, said that tilWte was great conflict of evidence. After tra,ve'rsing the evidence the magistrate held that the evidence of tne plaintiff was preferable in every way to that of the defendant. ' On the counter-claim Goble would be non-suited.

Judgment- for £ll 15s was, entered for Lloyd, with costs amounting to. £l5 7s.