Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS DAY. [Before L. Broad, Esq., R.M.] Muncaster v. Hunter. ; This; was an action to recover £60 15s sd, made up of the; following items:— For work done in overtime from July llth to October Ist 1873, £9 3s 9d; for work done in overtime from October 2, 1873, to October 7, 1874, £48 Us 8d; set of watch glass drawers, £2; watch jobbing book -supplied, £1. Of this claim £3 was admittedj. Mr Fell appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Acton Adams and Mr jijunny for the defendant., ';"; The case occupied a lo'pg time, but the gist of the evidence may -be gathered from the judgment, which was to the following effect:-;., ; _:- His Worship said: The question is a very simple lone; there is no .point of law to decide, but it merely rests with me as a jury to decide what were the terms agreed upon, as it seems to me that the defendant in his evidence has conclusively proved the plaintiff's case. For ten years the latter was employed by Hunter at £4 a week and Is 8d per hour overtime. Hunter wished him to go to Blenheim to take charge of and work in a shop there for him, and offered the same wages as he was getting here and house rent. This clearly meant that he was to receive payment for overtime there as well as here, or what inducement could there have been to him to make the change? The bargain was that he was to receive the same rate of wage as here, ahd the payment of house rent was to be the inducement to him to move. I think nothing of his not making a specific claim for overtime payment before, as he might have looked upon it as a sort of nest-egg on which he could fall back if ever he should decide upon setting up business on his own account. That the account was not made up before was not his fault, as he states, anil it is not denied on the other side, that he repeatedly urged that the books might be made up. There is some slight deduction to be made for holidays, and the judgment will be for £59 17s lOd and costs £5.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NEM18770319.2.11

Bibliographic details

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XII, Issue 67, 19 March 1877, Page 2

Word Count
380

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XII, Issue 67, 19 March 1877, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XII, Issue 67, 19 March 1877, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert