CLAIM FOR WAGES.

Shannon News, 18 December 1925, Page 3

CLAIM FOR WAGES.

SHANNON RAOTES IN COURT. At the Magistrate's Gou|rt at Levin yesterday, a case was heard iu which a lad named Basil Coakley, claimed from 3. Conchie, senr., farmer, a sum of £7 12s 10d, balance of wages >" owing to September 19, 1925, at 35s per week. Of this £2 17s lOd was for the previous season, and £1 15s was for a week's wages in lieu of notice. Mr Moody appeared for plaintiff •' and Mr. Adams for defendant. Basil Coakley, aged 17, said he first worked for defendant fox four or five months. He finished up at the end of the season. His wages at first were £1 a week and found. He - was paid that about a month. He i had a difference with Mrs Conchie and was going to leave, but defendant asked him to stay on and live at home and he would give him the ' difference in wages, which were fix- j ed at 355. He was paid to the 20th ; of July, and worked till July 27th. Defendant said he would fix- the last week up later.. When witness went back this, season defendant said_he would pay what witness was, -getting at the job he ,was in and make it worth his while later on. He worked from August'lo to September 19. Subsequently saw defendant in town and told him about £lO was owing. He offered £6, which witness refused to take. Witness went home after getting stores for the farm. Defendant was at his home talking to his mother and said he did not want ' witness any more, though the latter asked if he wanted him to go out and milk that night. Cross-examined: There was only 20 oows in when witness went and,4o when he left. The full herd was 92. He came to work about 6.30 and went off about 9.30. He was very seldom off at 8. He came back at 2 30 in the afternoon and sometimes/ at 3.30. Wias finished about 5.30 and «ot home about 6 o'clock. . May Agnes Coakley, mother of the previous witness, .stalted defendant -offered her £6 in settlement of the amount. The boy was quite willing to <m -back and milk, but defendant) complained that he would not do as he was told. Defendant said -he did not want him to go back. Defendant had induced the boy to leave his previous job. ,-, „„t Cross-examined: The boy did not have a light job and was under age ' so could not spend a lot of time in the billiard roans as counsel sugge j S ohn-Conchie said plaintiff applied to him for a job when lie was work- • ing at Franks, but witness told him to stay 'where he was until he wanted him. Next week he saw him. mthe town and he said ne./had^lett ■ franks and was out of a ]Ol> Wi - „ess told him he could come back if ' he liked -and he would give him something and when witness s son came home, and if he stopped J« *J*£ son, when,the cows oame mhe would give him 355. There were only nine cows n then. He would come to work about 6.30 and finish about 8. ■ T the afternaon he would come about 3.20. Witness got the cow 6 m. Plaintiff was quite satisfied the pre v£S seaSm when witnes*£qu-g£ up with him. 'She boy was curt When it suited him. Defendan e | to square up with plam^J T^J^ t S ti!p'cows were comma in. fast, nain U« would not listen «t him, however, and said he had[not tune.. , cross-examined: >™ * ep * e S . ■ to 35s vev week bu plaintiff was. satisfied. Tlb* Wfgg* witness told him he would give nuu Tew pounds till, the oows came m ' tnd Ttmde no promise as fo tihe am'unT Wifn'J was sivina him more than £1 a weeK. ?rptfintiff bad listened to reason * nil he might nave given him aW mor ? Witness did not oflei:«at L meeting in the street. Witness MdToTd pfaintiff he need not come took because he wanted someone he Sufd depend on and he= thought he would have left him in the lurch The Magistrate saidl that wth re • 'card to the charge of £2 <s, it was a stele claim and the boy was quite • satisfied. Plaintiff'* vented him going hack again to his titled to wages in lieu of notice, ine Magtstra e also held that the £7 paid '■■ hi fespect of this season was suific^admitted that a f PW of the cows were in and there fore there would mot be the lull amount of work, To a certain .exStS claim seemed to have been '■'•■ trumped up. The boy \vas paid all V heTal ehtitled to. Judgment won d be fordefendant, but no costs would be allowed.