CARTING AND WAGES.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXV, Issue 19, 23 January 1915, Page 3

CARTING AND WAGES.

STRATFORD COURT CASE. The case of A. J. Chard v. W. M. Bayly and Co., a claim for £4l, for carting and wages, was heard before Mr Kenrlck, S.M., at Stratford,' yesterday. Mr J. R. L. Stanford appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr E. S. Rutherfurd for the defendant. Af J. Chard gave evidence to the effect that he saw an advertisement in the Post of about Bth August, asking for tenders for carting lime. He visited the defendant’s office, and saw the. specifications. He went to view the work and had a conversation with Mr Roberts on the Sunday following his visit to defendant’s office, He did ■ not tender for the work. On the 21st August he received a visit from Mr W. M. Bayly, who said he wanted the team for carting lime at Toko. Witness said he did not like the job. He finally agreed with Mr Bayly to do the work at £2 per day. His driver, Hartigan, was to do the carting. He arranged with Mr Bayly regarding feed for the horses. He was not at the time dealing in feed “with the defendant. The work commenced on August 28th. He went to Mr Bayly to get squared up, and the latter said that witness would have to see Mr Roberts. Witness had not seen Roberts up till this time. Roberts gave him cheques for £lO for himself and £4 for the driver on account. Witness then applied to Mr Bayly for the balance, but defendant said lie would not do anything in the matter, Hartigan had received £4 - from defendant before witness received any money from Roberts. When witness saw Roberts he was given, an open cheque for £4l, leaving £6 still owing. The cheque was presented on 6th October, and was dishonored..

Mr Stanford here read a letter which he had received rom WBayly and Co., in which they said they were not responsible for the terms of engagement. Witness said this was not so. . He saw Mr Bayly on 10th Hfcetnber, when witness said that he looked to defendant for the money, as witness was employed by him.

To Mr Eutherfurd: Thebe was no mention of time when Mr Bayly interviewed him.

W. Hartigan, driver, gave cqrro borativo evidence as to t*e intervipw with defendant. Roberts’ name was not mentioned during the interview He' applied to Mr Bayly for .money and received £-1,

Cross-examined' by Mr Eutherfurd His time was not checked by Roberts nor did witness ask him for money He’ was not dismissed on Octobei Gtli by Roberts.

This clovsed the case for the plait tiff.

W. M. Bayly said that the advertisement for tenders was inserted by Roberts. 'He went to see plaintiff, and asked him to do carting for Roberts at Toko lime kiln, and it wasagfedd 1 Hhh£ phliutiff.' r should 'dot■•.tin work for' £2' per day until, he had more experience of the work, when other arrangements could be made. ; Plaintiff asked'him about payment; and ■ witness said he would - see him paid'for the first fortnight. He told plaintiff that the work would probably last a considerable time, and that) plaintiff would "have to make fresh arrarigeiffehts faith Roberts after the fortnight. When plaintiff applied to witness for money, witness told him he had no liability. He gave Hartigan £1 on one occasion, and £3 at another time. He sup plied horse feed to the plaintiff to tliq amount of about £2O. To Mr Stanford: He was only liable for the fortnight. The plaintiff made all arrangements with him. He -was certain that liability for fourteen days was arranged at the interview he had Avith plaintiff. Hr was not interested in the lime kiln. There were only two agreements between Roberts' arid himself existing, an agency agreement and a bill ol sale. Roberts’ name was mentioned at the interview, and both other witnesses were incorrect if they said otherwise. Hartigan was the omy man working for, Roberts whom lie paid without an ordet.

W. E. Roberts proprietor of the lime kiln, Toko, said that as he received no tenders for the carting, hr asked ; Mr' Bayly to obtain a carter. Plaintiff- came out to see him on August 25th, after seeing Mr Bayly. He gave defendant particulars in regard to terms. He had seen defendant tile day before when he told witness that plaintiff would call on him. Defendant told him that Chard would do the, work for £2 per day. Hartigan took his orders from witness or one of his men. Plaintiff came first with his account about 4th or sth October. Witness gave plaintiff two cheques, £lO for himself, and £4 for Hartigan. No alteration was made in the arrangements —all the work was to be paid for at £2 per day. To Mr Stanford: Upon the first time the plaintiff applied for money he gave him £l4 and on the second £4l, He did not see plaintiff before plaintiff had his interview with defendant.

This -closed the case for the defence.

A. J. Chard (recalled') said witness saw Roberts before, defendant interviewed him. To Mr Rutherford: He did not *see M>; Roberts after bis interview with Mr Bayly.

The Magistrate remarked that the dealings betwen the different parties had been very lax. Hecfsion was reserved till the next sitting of the Court.