WAGES AND ALLOWANCES.

Shannon News, 15 November 1927, Page 3

WAGES AND ALLOWANCES.

FARM LABOURER'S CLAIM FAILS

The Magistrate visiting Levin, Mr. J. H. Salmon, had before him on Friday the' case of a farm labourer who sued his employers for a sum of money which he alleged to be owing to him after his dismissal, from employment about two years ago. Judgment went for the defendant.

Henry James Shailer, farm labourer, of Shannon, proceeded against William Baker, of Marton, and Robert W. Bothamley, of Porirua, with a claim for £6O, as balance for an account allegedly ,due to - laiutiff for wages, meat and a worker's board when plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a farm labourer at Te Horo. In the statement of claim, the plaintiff said lie' was engaged on December 11th, 1922, by the defendants to work on their farm at Te Horo at a wage of £2 10s per week. In addition to this wage, the defendants undertook to supply him with a free house, butter, milk and meat during the period of»his engagement. On June 30, 1925, they agreed to pay him an additional 10s, making the wage £3 per week. From February 9th, 1926, to June,,3oth, 1926, plaintiff alleged, the defendant's failed to supply him with any meat. At the '.ecmest of the defendants, he supplied board to one Satherley for 9 weeks at the rate of £1 per week,, which sum, he -contended, -the • defendants agreed to pay. The claim was for £6O balance allegedly due to him as shown by a statement submitted to the Court. The amount of the claim was subsequently reduced by £lO by the plaintiff'owing. t,o the discovery of an error. Mr E. T. Moody appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. B, T. Bothamley for the defendants. /

The plaintiff, giving evidence; stated that on December 11, 1922. he commenced working for Baker and Bothamley, on a farm at Te Horo, having got the position through a brother-in-law, i The wage, promised by Bakpr, was £2 10s .a week. Witness continued on the farm for some time, but he did not receive his cheques regularly. As he received thp cheques he entered them 'n a book. There was one pay of £lO missed. , The wage was raised to £3 a week. The lease of the property on which he was-working was eventually "sold, and he was put. on co another parr/ of the property, early in February, Prior to going on to the second property he used to receive milk, butter,, meat and bacon, and had a free house. He left the second property at the end of June or' July, having obtained another position. When he was on the second "property he received milk and butter,'but no other goods:; he had the free use of a whare from another man. He had asked Baker about moat, and-the later said, "iou will have to get meat." His meat bill from February to June "came to'just over £2 a month. When he .left there was money owing to him, and he told Baker so. Baker t-aid lie would go through the books; and the night before witness left, Baker said he had been through the bocks, and he also 'ooked through witness's, book and next morning told him it was correct, except that one cheque lor "'£lo was not entered. After leaving, witness received some ,of the wages -hat were due to him. A cheque for £ls was posted to him by Baker. Witness wrote back stating that there was still a deficiency, and Baker then sent him a cheque for £4 16s. Since then witness had written three letters;to Baker, to which he received no reply. He also wrote to Bottomley, who replied that he would see Baker. A man named Satherly, employed by defendants on the. same farm, was staying with witness from the early part of December to the middle, of February. Witness understood that- Baker had told witness's wife that he would pay Satherley's board. About nine weeks' board' was due. It was never suggsted to witness that his wage was a.monthly one. To Mr Bothamly.—Witness was ''on the rocks" at the time lie was engaged and was very grateful to get the job, he had been nine mouths out of work. A man named Moffatt was generally Avith Baker, but was not present at the interview when witness was engaged. Witness was, positive that the offer was £2 10s a week, arid r.ot £lO a month. He had found Baker an honest and liberal man all through; It was just before Christmas that Baker paid him first, .when witness had been on the place three weeks. • - A checjue productd by the defence accounted for JQIO of, .the clafim, this cheque not having been entered in the plaintiff's .book. Plaintiff admitted that he had overlooked it.

Alfred .James Bullimnn, farmer, of Waikanae, gave evidence as to the engagment of plaintiff, who was introduced by witness to Baker.

Counsel for the defence characterised ihe claim as a "try-on," stating that plaintiff waited 4£ years before bringing his claim against the defendants.

William Baker, one of the defendants, now of Marton, formerly a farmer at To Horo, stated that he had got in touch Avith Shailer through Bulli:nan. He was ralher put off by hearing that Shailer had six children, but as the man had been out of work for a long time witness wished to do him a good turn and engaged him. Witness showed him the -house and Shailer was satisfied with it. Wages were discussed, and witness told him he would pay him the same as he had.paid Satherley—viz. £lO a month—and Shailer could milk a couple of cows for hhnslf. Witness did not think he was getting a very experienced man, but he was a good man, a wiry chap. Witness' allowed him to kill a sheep a week, of which witness took a quarter. After a while two of Shailer's sons' got out of work, and as witiicss was securing more cows he gave them some pharemilking to do. The father was not supposed to milk for witness, but to look after the stock. Later Shailer assisted one of the boys with the milking. When the lease was about to fall in, witness advised Shailer to get another position, Witness practically

sacked him, but kept him on out of pure charity. Shailer had wanted to pitch a couple of tents on the second fann, but witness objected, and so Shailer secured the use of a whare from another man. After Shailer asked for a rise, witness paid him £l2 a month for, about five months. Witness was surprised when he received the bill from Shailer lately. When Shailer left, witness gave him a horse that had cost-witness £22. If plaintiff or his wife had approached him in regard to the boarder's account, he would have made inquiries relative, to it.

'Herbert Moffatt, butcher, .if Otaki. 'gave evidence as to the interview when Shatter was engaged. In giving judgment Kis Worship 'said that the onus was on the plaintiff of proving that the wages were to be paid weekly, and he had failed to do so. The claim for the board of Satherley was weak. The alleged promise to Mrs Shatter was not given h: evidence, the lady not having been called as a witness. With regard to meat allowance, when defendant said that Shatter would have to get his meat there appeared to be a new engagement. The claim must fail in-all these particulars, and'the'whole claim appeared to lack bona fides. Judgment would be for the defendant.