CARPENTERING DISPUTE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 2760, 19 July 1924, Page 3

CARPENTERING DISPUTE.

TOLLISON V. EASTON.

JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF,

The oral ease Tollison v. Easton,' claiming £53 10/-, allegedly due to him through irregularity of alleged contract, tadjourned from last, court day, occupied most of the time at yesterday’s S.M. Court, at which Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., presided.

A. P..J3aston, in evidence, stated he lmd ! employed Tollison on day labour only. He kept Tollison’s time right from the first day he commenced wtirk, and he had put in 191days before the dispute arose, less a couple of hours. Witness himself worked. 161 days. On the day of the dispute Tollison said he would knock the work idown, hut witness told him not to be foolish. He then went away and on the Monday morning brought an account round for his work, which witness refused to accept, the figure, in his estimation, being too high. He offered to pay Tollison 2/6 an hour which lie refused. Tollison then said he would see a lawyer. Plaintiff only brought, ordinary carpenter’s tools to wit ness’s place. The.S.M.: What were you doing ? Witness: The same work as Tol lison. -I have a rough knowledge of carpentering. Mr Hollings: You say you kept a note of Tollison’s time? Yes. Why did you not make the first draw; out in accordance with the time sheet instead of paying him more than w'as due to him? Witness said that it was quite a common thing to pay an employee over the amount due to him if he asked fpr such allowance. Told Tollison lie was overdrawn at the time. Mr Hollings: Did you get a receipt? No, Mr Hollings contended that as a business, man, Air Easton would have made Tollison’s cheque out ill accordance with bis time sheet and domnaded a reeeipl for such money bad Tollison been employed on day labour. Mr Easton was very inconsistent.

Witness said dial Tollison did not mention that be was working on contract until die 31st May. AD- Hollings: You were very clever. You did not sign the contract Tollison gave you. Witness contended the form (produced) was no contract and was merely a price for which he had asked Tollison before the work had been commenced. Tollison had estimated the cost of the .job supplying material, labour, and everything but witness considered this figure too high and had asked for a price for labour alone, which had been produced, namely, £53 10/. This witness also considered top high as the first tender was for £llO and the material would cost £75.

Asked t<> produce the time sheet referred to, witness said he had only a copy, the original having been destroyed accidentally. Mr Hollings? This copy has been made out since proceedings commenced hasn’t it? No.

Air Hollings then examined witness on the copy submitted aud severely questioned him. Witness said that Tollison had been employed 10 A days when he asked for his first draw and witness paid him £l2. The S.M.: The amount due on the time employed was £lO 10/-, a dif ferenee of 30/-. Mr Hollings then referred to the day Tollison went to Palmerston N. to procure iron for witness. By doing so plaintiff had saved witness £s* Witness: Not at all. I obtained prices locally and elsewhere. I could get the iron'here for £lB and 1 knew that I could get it in Pal merston N. for £l4. 'Tollison wanted to, go to Palmerston N. and asked if he could get the iron which I agreed to let him do. AH’ Hollings: And'you don’t want to pay his expenses to Palmerston North, and begrudge him the paltry 4/7 discount!; , •; ;■ =- J ■ After further cross examination AD’ Hollings drew the S.M.’s attcntiorrioTheTaw on the case. Summing up, the S.M. said that he did not think any definite pay had been fixed for day labour, nor was lie satisfied that a contract had been arranged. There appeared to have been a misunderstanding,'owing, no doubt, to plaintiff’s bad hearing. Plaintiff was entitled to 3/ an hour in his estimation, and he would enter judgment for plaintiff for £1,4 10/-, (including .£5 10/paid inipfgourt). witi)'cast's £5^.9/-.