The Southland Times. FRIDAY, JANUARY 12, 1872.

Southland Times, Issue 1522, 12 January 1872, Page 2

The Southland Times. FRIDAY, JANUARY 12, 1872.

A measttbe, the efficacy of which lies in the protection it affords to the laboring classes, whose wages' claims are liable to be defeated by the fraudulent acts and misrepresentations of -their employers, was passed at the late session of Assembly, and only awaits the necessary assent to become law. In a country like this where contracts are let ad libitum, a safeguard of this kind becomes a matter of importance to that particular section of the community whose habits and training do not as a rule tend in the. direction of a high standard of commercial sagacity. We allude to the " Contractors Debts Act, 1871," which proceeds upon the preamble that "it is expedient to enable persons employed upon work in which a lien over the thing worked on cannot be acquired, and for which their employer has failed to pay them, to obtain payment from moneys due to their employer for the work which they have done." In the sister colony of Victoria, a similar enactment has been in operation for a period of years. The Act just passed in i New Zealand is an improvement upon it, ' inasmuch as that 1 facilities are not only given for the recovery of wages due, but the court is empowered to issue a process known in Scotland as an arreatment in dependence, that is, an attachment of moneys due to the defendant, to abide the issue of the action. As this process may be resorted to in conjunction with the issuing of the writ, employers disposed to defeat the claim by absconding, may thereby be prevented from carrying along with them the contract price of the work for which they are sued. In Victoria, no such preliminary attachment is issued, so that nothing seems easier than | for the contractor to abscond between the time of issuing the summons and the hearing of the suit, carrying along with him all the avail- ! able assets he can lay hands upon. In conceding to the wisdom of this precautionary movement, we must not overlook the fact that it treads closely upon the heels of a system of Scotch jurisprudence — that of wages arrestment, and arrestment for debt generally, which has from first to last been productive of serious hardship and flagrant abuse, and which we have no desire to see imported into the laws of New Zealand. The bare fact that capital can be locked up by legal attachment, pending the protracted operations of a civil suit, has compelled actions to be compromised, vexatious in their nature, and demoralizing in their tendencies. We animadvert to these

facts to show that however good the process may be, applied to the case in question, it ia not a measure the legislature should be encouraged to apply indiscriminately to every point of law or disputed account that may be brought forward for adjudication. These remarks will of course be understood as applying exclusively to the question of arrest or attachment in dependency of the suit, and not as referring to any increased facilities that may be desirable for the recovery of moneys for which judgments have been obtained or verdicts recorded. To return, however, to the specialities of the A-ct as passed, we find that in the Victorian measure, !j no cognisance whatever is taken of the sub-contractor. The New Zealand Act on the other hand renders the contractor equally liable with the sub-contractor for the wages of the workman employed by the latter. The , words of the Act are — " A contractor who i shall sublet any part of the work shall be responsible to the extent provided for by this Act for the wages of the workmen employed by a sub-contractor ; and a workman employed by a sub-contractor may proceed against the contractor as if he had been directly employed by him." The meaning of this is very simple. The contractor is bound to see that the sub-con-tractor's men are paid their wages, and if he fails to do so he will be liable to make good such amount as may remain unpaid. That provision will have the effect of making the contractor satisfy himself that all wages accounts contracted in respect of the work done have been paid before he settles for the contract price. In further pursuance of this alternative liability, the workman is provided with a remedy, and may, if he thinks necessary, proceed against the contractee, or party by whom the work was originally let, for payment of any money due by him, the said contractee, to the contractor. The practical application of this provision may be explained as follows : — A lets out a contract to B. B sublets it, or part thereof, to C, and D is employed by Casa workman. C fails to pay D his wages, in which case D can fall back upon A, and demand that any balance due to B shall be paid over to him, independent altogether of the fact whether or not B and C have settled accounts. In the event of the balance so recovered not being sufficient to liquidate the wages claim, D can still fall back upon B for any deficiency. At first sight it does appear rather an extreme measure, but when we reflec-t upon the many fraudulent collusions that can be entered into between contractors and sub-contractors to defeat the claims of the wa^es-man, it cannot be called unnecessarily stringent. Moreover, by the exercise of ordinary vigilance, the contractor may protect himself, but despite the utmost precaution of the workman, it is a matter of impossibility to guard against all the tacit understandings that may be made between contractors and their subcontractors. The practical provisions made by the Act are that any workman suing the contractor may obtain a certificate of cause of debt from the presiding judge or justice. If the work done be work, or part of or incidental to work for the doing of which any moneys may be due, or accruing due to the defendant (the contractor), in such proceedings under any express or implied contract with any third person, the plaintiff (the workman) may obtain payment of the sum mentioned in the certificate out of such moneys by serving on such third person (the contractee) a notice provided for by schedule annexed ! to the Act, together with a copy of the certificate issued as aforesaid. Service j of that notice to operate as an assignment to the workman of the debt due to the contractor to the extent of the amount stated in the certificate. Debts of workmen sewing such notice within seven days of the first notice are to be ranked rateably without priority, and thereby secure an equal distribution of the moneys attached. For the issue of such notice, clause 11 enacts " That leave to serve it may be obtained on the ex parte application of the workman, and he shall in such application prove on oath to the satisfaction of the court, or a judge thereof, that the sum sued for is due and owing by the contractor. It is further enacted that no such certificate shall be given if the work appears to have been done upon a moveable chattel of such a description that it would be practicable for a workman to have a lien thereon by retaining the same in his actual possession. If the sum found due shall be in respect of daily, weekly, or monthly wages, and shall exceed the amount of sixty days' wages, such certificate shall be given for the amount of sixty days' wages and no more. The last clause provides that '' nothing in the Act is to be construed to prejudice any other remedy which the workman may have against the contractor in respect of the debt due to him, or save as expressly provided to affect any right subsisting under any contract as aforesaid, or otherwise between the contractor and contractee."