ANDERSON v. RICHMOND.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXV, Issue 305, 23 December 1914, Page 7

ANDERSON v. RICHMOND.

JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF. Magistrate Kemick’s ! meut was 'cliveied at the Cour* yester--1 day afternoon in the case Ernest A. 'Anderson v. Arthur Richmond. ) Mr Stanford appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Thompson (for Mr W. G. Malone) for defendant. The judgment was as follows:—This was a claim for £7,10s for wages from 20th September to 12th October, 1914, at .£2 IDs per week. A counter-claim had been filed for board, hire of horses, grazing, rent of cottages and milksupplied, the total being £7 18s 4d. The plaintiff said he was engaged with his 'wife at the rate of £2 10s per week, and if he stayed longer than three months then they were to receive £0 par week for a further six months. The engagement included free cottage, milk and firing. Defendant was dissatisfied with the plaintiff’s wife’s work, but paid the wages till 20th September, which was a waiver to that date of any complaint he had. The defendant had made no alteration in the terms. The Magistrate was satis, fied on the evidence that the engagement was at the rate named by plaintiff and not at £lO per month as stated by defendant. Plaintiff was given judgment for the full amount, £7 10s, and costs.

| In regard to the counter claim, the jevidence showed that this could only |be brought against one of the plainj tiffs. None of the items of the counter claim were demanded until after plaintiff left the service and demanded his wages. The rent could not be claimed, as the defendant failed to give notice of intention to claim from a certain date, and as the engagement included a free cottage. It was not proved that there was any agreement to pay for the'hire of dray and horse by plaintiff. A non-suit was entered, costs being allowed plaintiff on the claim and counterclaim.