A Manakau Case.

Levin Daily Chronicle, 12 September 1918, Page 1

A Manakau Case.

At the last sitting of the Otaki Magistrate's Court a case was licai'd in whicJi Howard Andrew (Mr Kirk) claimed £12 13s lOd for goods supplied ifrom H. S. Flood (Mr Staveley), wth'o countor-claimed.' for £D 4s Id. The claim was admitted. . In opening the ; case on the counter-claim Mr Staveley | said Flood claimed for one week's wa- ' ges (£3 '10s), a nook's wages in lie uof notice,. expense* in meeting Andrew, overtime, and o per cent on goods purchased from plaintiff. Claimant Flood stated that he ausweiredi an advertisement by Mr Andrew for a grocery assistant and bookkeeper and got a wire to meet Mr Andrew in Wellington. Witness was appointed, it being "understood that the expeirse s of his trip to Wellington were to be paid, ami that he was to be allowed 5 per cent discount on all goods bought in the shop. Ho claimed overtime for opening she shop for an hour on evenings when the proprietor was in Wellington. He also claimed one week's wages owing and one week in lieu of notice. He had paid in £4 3s 9d and held a receipt for it. Crbss-examinedi, witness said -Mr Andrew may have given him special reasons for dismissing him. He was a married man, but liis wife did not live with him. He declined to say where liili wife was or anything about a lady who was living with him at Manakau. When dismissing him Mi' Andrew gave as his reason that the lady living with him wais not his niece. He denied! that he hlad been paid a week's wages and a week's wages extra in lieu of notice. He had only Mr Andrew's word that I he offered witness bin expenses to meet him in Wellington. I To the S.M. : Witness's wages were paid regularly up to the time of dismissal. It was agreed that the £7 should be dleducted from witness's account for goods. Mr Kirk contended that Flood was engaged, telling Andrew that he wap married, that his wife wasi away and his niece would come to Manakau with him. She fell ill, Andrew offered to get nssitsanee for him but this was declined and, a doctor and nurse came later and attended to (her. A lady came later from Wellington and stated that the woman was the wife of an officer abroad, and that .an order had been made against defendent for maintenance. Mr Andrew was so disgusted and annoyed wjjtli the circumstances thasb he dismissed Flood on the the spot, paying thim the wages due with a week's wa.ges in lieu of notice. Mr Andrew never dreamt for a. moment of deducting money from the account, a. question that was never raised. John Howard Andrew, saidi he en gag. Ed defendant as shop assistant and bookkeeper at £3 IG-. He agreed to the hours. No demand was made from witness for the claim now raised. The only expenses offered,- claimant was his hotel expenses. He worked from June Ist to July 26t'lil and' was paid regularly each week. Aliinost immediately on. arrival he asked for .leaive through sickne«s. W'iltnejss offered him assistance but he turned down the offer. Witness, however, gave him coal and wood. A lady from Wellington informed witness's wife that there was no sudhl relationship between claimant and the lady he was living with as ho alleged. Witness taxed him with it andl got an answer t-liut lie cousidetroyJ lrrusatisftto tory. Witness said hie would makefurther enquiries but Flood asked him not to do so. In consequence of _ what he ascertained he decided to dismiss him. Witness pointedl oiut that he had! been deceived and that lie tad never dismissed anyone at a minute's notice before. account was nc-vev mentioned. He was always paid his wages by caish. When ho left he was paid £7 in cash and witness did not asik for a receipt. To the S.M.: I gave him £7 an notes which l he countedi and went out of the shop. Thi s was a week's wagon and a week's wages in lieu of notice. Tihle Magistrate (Mr Page) sand the claim had been admitted, whilo the ! counter ola.im was for Flood to prove. 1 He had made a false declaration, wihieh | tended to shake his credibility andl ho \ had not established his coiuiter-clann, ! and therefore could not succeed. '• Judgment would be entered for Andrew i with 19s expenses.