A Warning to Employers.

Manawatu Herald, 19 November 1892, Page 2

A Warning to Employers.

In the R.M. Conrt on Tuesday 5 , Mr Kettle, R.M., delivered judgment in the case of Newton v. Sutherland, heard on the previous day, and as some important questions as to the effect of the Truck Act were raised and decided, we publish short particulars for the information and guidance of those who enter into contracts or employ labour. The plaintiff claimed to recover from the defendant £70, odd for falling a quantity of hush afc £1 per acre While fche work was progressing, the defendant bought and delivered to the plaintiff, at the request of the latter, certain tools, etc., and .also supplied the plaintiff with sheep, which the plaintiff killed and consumed at his camp. These items amounted to some £12 odd. The defendant also made several payments, at the request of the plaintiff amounting to -£11 ls 6d, and he also gave certain storekeepers, who carried on business in tho district, instructions to supply the plaintiff with any stores which the latter might require. These stores came to £19 9s, and were duly paid for by the defendant. The defendant claimed to set off all these payments against the amount payable by him to the plaintiff, bufc the plaintiff contended that with" the exception of the items amounting to £11 Is fid, the defendant could nofc do so, as the Truck Act of 1891 prohibited such payments being set off. Section 5 of the Acfc, which provides wages, etc., must be paid to the person who earns fchem, in cash and nofc otherwise, and Section G which prohibits a set-off were relied on hy the plaiutiff. The defendant; on the.^ctther hand contended that he was-' ehtklett to set off the whole of the items and also claimed 'to* 'be entitled to* the benefit of sub-section 2 of section 19 which provides that in the ease of faith felling contracts the employer can deduct from money due to the workmen to the extent of two months wages only for tools, food, etc., supplied for use on the work. The Magistrate held that the Truck Act applied and thafc the defendant could only set off. the payments made by him (beyond those admitted) to the extent of two months wages which amounted to £20, thus —after allowing the plaintiff's claim at £40— leaving'the defendant a loser fco fche extent of £11. This decision should act as a warning to employers who should carefully peruse and make themselves thoroughl v acquainted with the terms of '"The Truck Act, 1891 Ifc appears to us that an employer is not safe unless he pays wages to the workmen himself in lno'd __..■•.«•- Wanganui J fer ahi.