DAIRY-FARMING CASE.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXV, Issue 302, 19 December 1914, Page 2

DAIRY-FARMING CASE.

A MIDHIRST MATTER. DECISION RESERVED. At the Magistrate’s Court, Stratford, yesterday, before Mr Kendrick, S.M., Ernest Anderson and another, sued Arthur Hooper Richmond (his late employer) of Midhirst, farmer, for wages from 20th September to 20th October, 1914, amounting to £7 10s. Plaintiff was represented by Mr J. R. L. Stanford, and the defendant by Mr P. Thomson, Mr Stanford briefly outlined the case. At Counsel’s suggestion, the S.M. agreed to take the .claim first, leaving the counter-claim to be dealt with later. Mr Thomson: The defence is that the wages are not due, and the contract lias not been performed. Ernest Anderson, of Midhirst, giving evidence, said as the result of a message from defendant he went to see him on 11th August last about working on his farm. Mrs Richmond, wife of defendant, was present at the interview when the question of wages was discussed, and when plaintiff asked £3 a week she said: “We never paid more than £2 10s,” and remarking: “Of course, there is the cottage, milk, and firing.” Ultimately £2 10s was agreed upon as wages for three months, and then £3 for six months, and the usual allowances.

Mrs Anderson, wife of plaintiff, in her evidence, stated she got up about six o’clock in the morning, washed the releaser and tray, and helped in the stripping 'of the cows, about 45 being kept. Arthur Hooper Richmond, farmer, of Midhirst, stated that it was arranged with Anderson (Anderson’s wife was not then present) to give £lO a month as a married couple, bin if his wife was not up to the work he was to pay 10s a week as rent for the cottage. There was a doubt as to be wife being up to the work. Her duties would be to help with the milking, to wash the cups and plant, and generally assist with the feeding of the calves and carry out the usual farm duties of a married couple. Defendant said the man started work about the 12th August, but the wife did not come down to the shed until a month after, .When asked where his wife was, plaintiff said he could not get her down to the shed. The wife came down about eight or nine times during the period of employment.

The S.M.: When did you tell Anderson about the wife doing more work ?—Defendant; About a month after the time they started for me. Witness, continuing, said that about sth October defendant gave plaintiff a month’s tyotjce, thatjtjie work with the cows and in the shed had not been ' done. .

Mrs Anderson seemed to simpjy do as she liked.

Mrs Richmond, wife of defendant, narrated the arrangements made with plaintiff when he was engaged, also stating that 10s a week would be charged plaintiff for board prior to going into the cottage, which was not then available for occupation.

The counter-claim for £7 18s 4d was then proceeded with. Mr Richmond, in his evidence, said the amount of the counter-claim included the rent of cottage for seven weeks and 5 days at lOs a week, hire of horse and dray for removing plaintiffs’ furniture to the farm, board for one week at 10s, and for hard feed, ing and grazing plaintiff’s horse for a period of seven weeks and hive days. , Mr Stanford to defendant: So far as the board is concerned, Ernest Anderson, you say, arranged to pay for the board at 10s a week, and with regard to the hire of the horse and dray at 10s a day. Did he agree to it P— Yes.

Mr Stanford: Who werevpresent?— Only Anderson and myself. Mr Stanford: With regard to the question of rent and the milk to be supplied, was it part of his wages, or in addition to his wages of £2 10s. I take it if the work was carried out he was to get £2 10s, milk, cottage, and firewood.—Yes, that is right. Mr Stanford: With regard to the wages, what were they to get if Mrs Anderson was not up to the work ? Anderson was to get £lO a month and pay 10s a week for the cottage. Defendant was then cross-examined with regard to the claim for horse hire and feeding. Dealing with the question of service } the S.M. asked defendant when they ceased to work as a married couple?—On Wednesday, September 30th.

Mrs Richmond also gave evidence, and mentioned that as there was another woman and two children living in the cottage she objected to milk being supplied to “five persons.”

The S.M. remarked that Mrs Anderson was not one of the contracting parties agreeing to go to work at £2 10s a week. Mr Stanford, in dealing with the defence, submitted that a counterclaim could not be set up against any one or more plaintiffs, and in this case there were two plaintiffs claiming a fixed wage of £2 10s a week. Mr Stanford, quoting from the Truck Act, argued that for work done an employee must be actually paid in money, and that every worker shall be entitled to recover from his employer the whole of the wages earned. Ernest Anderson, in evidence, said there was no arrangement made for the one week’s board, and that he had not heard about the items referred to in the counter-claim until four or five

days after he left. “Mr Richmond,” said witness, “asked me into breakfast and dinner, and I never expected any charge. We were very friendly at the time.”

Mr Thomson then cross-examined Anderson as to the state of his financial position, enquiring why he did not sell the horse which was on Mr Richmond’s farm, and as to the hire of the horse and dray for the removal of his furniture.

The S.M. stated that as the several items in fhe counter-claim required some consideration he would reserve his decision.