A CLAIM FOR WAGES.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 50, 28 February 1914, Page 5

A CLAIM FOR WAGES.

JOINT OR SEVERAL? I At the Court yesterday afternoon Joseph Sharrock (Mr P. Thomson) proceeded against John Barwise Murray (Mr Rntherfurd) for wages for work done at Douglas in November last and January. Plaintiff, in evidence, said Murray engaged himself and his two brothers to do work at Douglas. There was three days’ work, and the payment allowed was £lO IDs. They told Murray that the work was not completed and he told them to resume work at £1 per day of nine hours. Several days’ work was done, and on some days a team was engaged, the price agreed upon for the team per day being £1 I os. The full amount owing was £2O 18s. The amount owing had never been previously disputed. The work to he done was the concreting of Mr Newton King’s saleyards at Douglas. By Mr Rntherfurd: Certain payments had been made, and of these sums his brothers had taken their shares. They were not working as partners, but as separate laborers. The S.M. said the contract had been made out to Sharrock Bros., which seemed to stop them separately. Mr Rntherfurd said defendant would lose his recourse against the brothers for payments already made if they were allowed to proceed separately. Before adjourning the Court till next week the S.M. said that before the [next sitting the parties should present la clear statement of accounts. The first items seemed to ho contracts, hut subsequent amounts might be in the way of wages. Plaintiff had to prove that the work at £1 per day was under a new arrangement and not as a partnership. The first three days was a clear partnership contract. , The case was adjourned lor a week.