MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XL, Issue 1858, 27 July 1918, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

DEFENDED EASE. At the Magistrate's Court yesterday A. Madgwick jm»eeeded against Woodroofe Bros, to recover tlio sms of £(>B 13s Ad alleged lo be due in ennneelion with a verbal agreement between the parties whereby plaintiff was to he employed on defendant’s farm under eerlain renditions. Plaintiff elaimed that ho and his family were employed to do .■the milking at £-1 per week, and that he was to he paid extra for any ploughing, diseing or sowing that be did. His claim was made up of wages £4O, which amount had already been paid, £2O for ploughing, etc., and £9 13s 9d for boarding defendants’ men. He also claimed that his employment was for a period of 12 months. Defendants contended that plaintiff was employed as a general farm hand, and that his employment was on a weekly basis. Plaintiff in evidence stated that, he was engaged by George Woodroofe to do the milking on the farm, for which he was to receive £4 per week, free house, butter and milk, the term of his employment being twelve months. For any ploughing, etc., he did lie was to be paid extra. He commenced work on March 2nd, and when he went there there-were 91 cows in milk. In May he refused to work the horses, as they were not properly fed, and Robert Woodroofe dismissed him with a week's notice. He finished up on May 27th. The cows were supposed to be milked by machines, but he found same in such bad order that he had to do the milking by hand. Whilst there he boarded one man for a week and a boy for some time, for which no was to receive £1 per week each, Robert Woodroofc stated that he met Madgwick and his brother (George Woodroofe) on the farm, and his brother explained that Madgwick was the man he bad engaged as general farm hand at £4 per week. He was employed on a weekly basis, there being no mention made of a period of twelve months. When Madgwick took up his-duties 20 cows were being milked in the morning, and 15 at night. The most cows that were ever milked on the larm was 05. As Madgwick did not do the work he was instructed to do, ho was given a week’s notice, and at the time made no comuhiint whatever. He arranged with Mrs Madgwick lo hoard a hoy employed on the farm al 17s (!d per week, and (here was an amount of £7 13s (hi due (o him lor hoard. Madgwick, however, owed them money against which this amount had been credited. George Thomas Woodroofe aPo gave evidence as lo the terms on '■•'’hiel) plaintiff was employed. H( was lo receive £4 per week and free 1 house and milk. He was engaged as a general farm hand on a weekly basis, no mention being made of a Iwelve months’ engagement. He was dismissed because be did not do I lie work* be was inslrneled to do. The Magistrate said be was s-m-

there was no engagement for 12 months, mid also that general larin work was included in plainlid’s Manic. Me was therefore not ontilled to anythin" extra for plon--iiin". It was admit led then’ Mats an amount due (o him for hoarding’ I he men, and judgment was entered np lor C 7 Ids (Id. with mi.sts 11s and solicitor’s fee .Cl (is Od.