Untitled

Patea Mail, 7 December 1881, Page 3

Lett v. Odgers was a claim heard at the R.M. Court yesterday for £l4 wages in lieu of a month’s notice, and for £lO wages due previously. The case had been twice adjourned owing to absence of defendant’s solicitor, Mr Hutchison was now instructed in an emergency, and he conducted the defendant’s case, Mr Hamerton being for plaintiff. Mr James Lett had been managing a lemonade and cordial manufactory owned by defendant, an innkeeper, at £3 10s weekly wages. Mr Lett was thrown from a horse, and laid up two or three weeks. Mr W. Scowu, then working as a polisher for Mr H. A. Arthur, was asked by Mr Lett’s son to take temporary charge of the factory, Mr Scown having been in the same line of business, and being brother-in-law to Mr Lett. The result appeared to be that Mr Scown made himself more acceptable to the proprietor, on various representations as to want of economy in management, and wrong book-keeping, these points tending to impeach Mr Lett’s honesty and discredit his management. When Mr Lett recovered and returned to the factory, he found Mr Scown installed as manager in lieu of himself. There was a dispute, and Mr Odgers told him to leave. A cheque was given for a fortnight’s wages to date. Mr Lett then refused to give up the key of the factory, and Mr Odgers stopped payment of the cheque at the hank. Mr Odgers, acting on legal advice, sent a month’s notice in writing. The evidence showed this was done after the alleged wrong entries, &c.. were discovered. The wrong entries consisted mainly of a higher price being entered for stuff delivered to Mr Odgers as compared with other publicans, and entries of quantities in excess of those stated to have been received at the bar It was contended on one side that this tended to show a false profit to the proprietor of the factory, by charging a fictitious price to him and by showing more bottles delivered than were received in the bar. It was contended, on the other side, that the higher price charged to Mr Odgers for articles out of his own factory was not to his detriment, as he lost nothing thereby, and the business showed a good profit, also that the prices had previously been higher, before competition. The excessive quantity entered was an item in dispute, the barman and Mr Lett differing as to the number of bottles on a particular day. The decision on the whole of a lengthy case was a verdict for the amount claimed, and costs. The Magistrate laid stress on the fact that tl e defendant gave a month’s notice after hj ecame aware of the supposed errors-and 'rcharges, and thereby condoned them.