DUKE’S “TREASURE HOUSE”

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 154, 20 September 1927, Page 1

DUKE’S “TREASURE HOUSE”

COURT CASE FOLLOWS COUNCIL’S GIFT CABINET-MAKER CLAIMS OVERTIME IF the Duke and Duchess of York have unpacked their luggage, and set up the presents accumulated on their Empire tour in White Lodge, it is possible that Princess Betty has, at times, gazed with vocal wonderment at an ornate Maori treasure house on its elegant, polished stand.

rriHIS present was given to the Royal visitors by .the Auckland City Council on March 2, but the question of payment was finally decided only to-day—and then in the Magistrate’s Court by Mr. F.- K; Hunt, S.M.

The case was one in which A. R. Moakes, cabinetmaker, of Titirangi, claimed £7l 10s lid from J. Park, architect,, of Queen Street, Onehunga. Park had entered into an agreement with the City Council to build the house, and Moakes had been employed by him to do the cabinetmaking in connection with the work.

He began work on November 22, 1926, and finished on January 29, 1927. In his claim he set down his ordinary wages at £6O, overtime at £47 15s 7d, expenses at £l3 18s Bd, and wages from January 31 until March 2 at £9 16s Bd. The defendant had paid £6O as wages, and] overtime was the question in dispute. Plaintiff’s actual claim was for £7O 10s lid Mr. W. R. Tuck appeared for Moakes and Mr. Allan Moodie for the defendant. Plaintiff’s Story Moakes told the Court that he had constructed presentation caskets for Earl Jellieoe, the late Mr. Massey, and Sir Charles Ffergusson, besides the Maori treasure house for the Duke and Duchess.

Witness was approached by Park and was asked .ta build the City Council’s present to the Royal tourists. It

was subsequently agreed that he was to be paid 116 a week of 44 hours Overtime and expenses incurred in the construction were to be met on completion of the work. Previous to taking on the job he had been earning £5 10s a week by working for a cabinetmaker, Collinge. Discussing the building of the trea sure house with Park, plaintiff said there would be considerable overtime owing to his having to do a lot of running about looking for materials and timber. “You weren’t building a cathedral, were you?” interjected Mr. Hunt. Continuing his evidence, Moakes said he kept a daily record of his time and overtime, and was paid fortnightly, but

never rendered a statement of overtime until after the work was completed. "Had your employer no say as to whether you should work overtime?” asked the magistrate. “If my gardener says ‘I am going to work overtime until 10 p.m. to-night,’ I should say to him, ‘No you're not, you are going home.’ ” “Piffling Creatures” In a letter to defendant, produced by Mr. Moody, plaintiff explained his attitude toward the City Council. The letter is as follows: “Dear Jack, —How is it that I have as yet received no part of the amount of wages due to me on that Duke of York’s job? “Can it be possible that those sloths in office have not yet paid their accounts? “If this is the case they certainly need someone to stir them up, “Had it been a contract affair. I am of opinion that the City Council would have been fortunate had it cost Anything less than £I,OOO. “I imagine those piffling little creatures making a fuss over such a paltry sum as £SOO for a present to the Duke. Infernal insolence and disloyalty, I call it.” Cross-examined by Mr. Moody Moakes said that the job had been greatly prolonged by additional work ordered by Park. “Owing to the slowness of your work with Mr. Collinge when you were formerly employed by him. were your wages cut down from £5 10s to £5 5s a we 3k?” counsel asked. Witness at first denied, then admitted the fact.

To Mr. Hunt, witness said he had not given an estimate of the time the making of the treasure-hou3e would occupy, as it was impossible to assess the probable duration of such a job. ( Proceeding.)