A WAGES CLAIM.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXVI, Issue 1264, 27 June 1914, Page 3

A WAGES CLAIM.

WILLIAMS v. EASTON

At the local sitting of the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, Frank Williams (Mr Gifford Moore) proceeded against F. S. Easton (Mr R. Moore) to recover the sum of £l2, made up of 13s 4d for short payment of 3s 4d per month for four months, 13s 4d for two day’s work, £8 13s 4d for one month’s wages in lieu of notice and £2 for breaking in a pony. Plaintiff claimed that he was employed at the rate of £lO4 per annum, defendant contending that the amount was £102; plaintiff said that defendant dismissed him without notice, defendant denying that plaintiff was dismissed and plaintiff claimed that he broke in a pony at defendant’s request, defendant stating that the pony in question was broken iu previously and that he did not ask plaintiff to break it in, but lent it to . plaintiff at his request. The following evidence was taken : The plaintiff, Frank Williams, ploughman, stated that for some months he was in the employ of defendant as ploughman. The work was hard and during the summer months he had worked long hours as defendant had told him If he went on with the work while the ground was hard, later on, in the winter time, he could have a holiday, defendant saying two or three days were “ neither here nor there ” then. The arrangements made with Easton were that plaintiff was to receive £lO4 per annum, with a tree house, cow and firewood, Easton stating that this would amount to £8 ios per calendar month and he was paid £8 10s per month, but had found out since that this was 3s qd short. On June 2nd witness asked defendant for a holiday on the following day, which was the King’s Birthday. Defendant refused saying, “No, its no good to me. You don’t do any overtime forme.” Defendant got very cross and used bad language and told witness to get out of it if he didn’t like it. Defendant also said, “ I suppose you want your cheque” and he thereupon paid witness up to the end of May. A few days later witness got. a written notice from defendant calling upon him to vacate the house he was living in. Alter defendant gave witness the cheque on June 2nd he said in reply to a question that he (witness) was to get off the job at once. While witness was in defendant's employ, at his request he broke in a pony for him. This was dene in witness’ own time. Defendant said he wanted the pony broken in and made thoroughly quiet for his little girl. To Mr R. Moore: Was not aware that defendant usually employed his farm labourers at the rate of £IOO per year with free house, cow and firewood. Witness did not ask for the job. Defendant offered it to him. He said that £lO4 per year was £8 ios per month. He didn’t tell witness that the wages were £xoo per year and that this amount was £8 6s 8d per month. Witness denied saying that he wanted £8 ios per month, the same as a man named Death was getting. Denied having afterwards told Death that he was getting £8 ios per month. Easton told witness that £8 xos per month was £lO4 per year. . He didn’t reckon it up but took Easton’s word for it. Defendant told him he could have a holiday in the winter. When witness asked for the day off he did not say he was going to the races. Witness denied telling Easton he was going to the races whether he said he could go or not. He denied that Easton said, “ if you are going the job’s not much good to you.” Witness went to the races and did not return to work again. Easton had told him not to. Easton discharged him and if he said he didn’t he was saying what was not correct. Witness denied sending a man named Turner to defendant to get the two days wages due to him for June xst and 2nd but admitted that Turner brought over a cheque and said that thirteen shillings for witness was included in it. Witness refused to accept it because it was mixed up iu Turner s cheque. The work that witness would have been doing on the King’s Birthday was not very particular. It was carting rushes and witness was only putting in odd days at it. He denied that if wet weather set in it would interfere with the work to any great extent. He admitted seeing a man named William Easton on the morning of June 3rd and he asked witness if he was going to the races and he said yes. Witness denied saying “ I’ve done in my job. The boss didn’t want me to go but I’m ; going.” Witness broke the pony v in in February. It had not been broken in previously. He denied asking Easton for the use of the pony so as to leave his own horse free for his little girl to ride to school on.

For the defence Mr R, Moore called Frederick Spencer Easton, the defendant, who stated that he usually paid the farm labourers at the rate of £xoo per year, with free house, cow and firewood. Williams was the only man that had received more and he was paid at the rate of £lO2 per year. When witness told Williams the terms on which he usually employed farm labourers he mentioned, that a man named Death received £8 ios per month, and asked witness if he would give him that amount. Witness said as it was a difference ot only 3s 4d per month, he would make it £8 10s. Williams usually knocked off at half-past three on Saturdays. He did not work any overtime and witness never knew him to be in the paddock before half past eight iu the morning. He had two days off for the Feilding races. On the evening of Tune 2nd witness met Williams in Whyte’s Hotel and he asked if he could get off on the following day to go to the Otaki races. Witness, said, “No, your work is too important.” Williams, “Well I’m going.” Witness replied that apparently the job was not much good to him. Witness did not him and fully expected that he would return to work as usual the next day, but he didn’t, witness seeing him at the races. He did not return to work again. Witness did not see him again until he served the notice on him to vacate the house. Had witness discharged him he would have paid him right up, but as he did not discharge him he only paid him for the previous month’s work. It was essential that Williams should work on June 3rd, because if wet weather set in it would greatly interfere with the work. When he found that Williams had not returned to work he put another man in his place. Witness told the clerk at his mill to include the two days wages due to Williams in Turner’s cheque, but this amount was refused by Williams, who told witness next day that he wanted a month’s wages in lieu of notice. Witness told him that it should be the other way round as he had left the job without giving any notice of his intention to do so. Witness knew he was short of money and that was the reason why he was willing to pay him the two days wages. As far as breaking in the pony was concerned, witness denied that this work was done by Williams as the pony had, with other horses, been handled in October, Williams asked witness if he could let him have a horse in order to leave his own horse for his little girl to ride to school on and he told him he could have the pony. To Mr Gifford Moore: Williams had worked for witness previously, and he recognised he was a good, reliable man. He denied telling Williams that he could have a holiday in the winter. He had allowed him two days off at Easter. He considered it was unreasonable to expect a holiday on June 3rd considering the importance ot the work he was doing. He denied that any heated remarks passed between them. He did not use bad language, and was not angry. He was not a short tempered man. When he gave Williams the cheque he said: “ If you go to-morrow your job’s no good to you.” Witness saw Williams at the races, but did not speak to him. William Easton gave evidence to the effect that he saw Williams on the morning of June 3rd, and spoke to him. Williams said he was going to the races. That the bos« had told him he couldn’t go, and he supposed he bad done his job in. He knew the pony in question was handled in October, but didn’t know if Williams had anything to do with breaking it in subsequently.

To Mr Gifford Moore : Williams said that he had had a row with the boss, and done his job in.

This concluded the evidence, and counsel briefly addressed the court.

In giving judgment the Magistrate said that to ask for a holiday on the King’s Birthday was a reasonable request, especially when there were races about, and a man liked races. The request was quite a reasonable one, and Williams said that it was made Easton flew into a rage. Easton gave a different version, according to which, his conduct was almost angelic on that occasion, but from what he knew of Easton, he was not a very amiable man, and being angry at the time may have said more than he thought he did. Williams’ account was themoreprobable of the two. He said that Easton flew into a temper, and the probabilities were that he did so. Of the two statements he preferred to believe the plaintiff. In connection with the claim for 13s 4d short paid on four monthly payments, the facts were that Williams accepted the cheques for four or five months without demur, and the Court was reluctant to disturb any arrangement that had previously been accepted by both parties, and in view of that he preferred to take Easton’s statement. As far as the claim for breaking in the pony was concerned, this claim had not been made previously, and appeared to be an afterthought. Judgment would be for plaintiff for £8 10s being one month’s wages In lieu of notice, and 13s for two days wages (June Ist and 2nd), a total of £9 3s with court costs £1 is and solicitor £1 6s.