S.M. COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXXXIII, Issue 11, 15 January 1901, Page 2

S.M. COURT.

♦ .. \ Monday, January U.—Beitore Mr. R, L. Stanford, S.tfl i IMPOOTANT TO DAIRY f£«MERS. I M. Patterson sued Preii|k Morris, of Tupuhae, for £3 7s 64 being one month and 3 days' wages. I; \ Mr. Wright appeared fo\t me plaintiff and Mr. F. Wilson for Herendant. According to plaintiff's etaidenee he, jarid another young man nWed Bom- | merville, were engagnd in) Auckland by Mrs. Macfie, who acted aWhgent for Mr. J. Myno»t, of New Mymsuth. They wer« given to understand that the wages w«re to bo 15s p. rlvteek and £1 if thuy suited and remained ; also that their passage mon y '&n|d to [paid. They came to Now Ewtmqufch, went to Mynott's uffioo, s;m Miss Mynoti, and were sent to Mr ijloiii-, where they arrived o> October! 2'2u.1. At firbt Morris said hew s -niy joking i when he said he wanted hands,las ho, had boys of his own, .but after some talk he said he would give thoi a 10s eaoh for a week and sue how the y got; oh. At the end «f the week, as ' they suited Morris, he agreed to give them 15s a week and pay them every f jurth Tuesday, the working hours sung fixed at from 5 am. to 6.30 p.tj , tho Arrangement being that they sH>pp,d for six months on those terMs, to which they agreed, On November 20 they were pud four weeks tvag< s, and they worked on up til} Decjerober 20th, when as they couid not fjetj thoir wages they left. On December! 17th Sommerville had had some wordsj with Morri&and his son relative to caiiryiqg a milk bucket, otherwise there was no unpleasantness. They did not leave owing to beingjfcje toijeJsJjettejHkork I in town, as untuthey camoinlo" ttlvif I they know nothing about it. ThW' were now on the reclamation works as>d getting 7s per dny. Got this bill&t themselves. Morris gave as a reasoli for not paying them at the end of tts,a month that he would have no redrefi.-s should they leave suddenly, unless l|i3! kept back a moath's p,ay ? hfiitj as thov had arranged to be paijfij monthly they declined to work on unless paid. Witness did not heir Sommerville ask to be sacked. Had they not been strangers they would not have stopped at first when only 10s a weak was offered. In cross-examination by Mr. Wilson, plaintiff s*id that ha lal| as. broke h\a part of the. agreement by

His Worship said he had no difficulty in arriving at a conclusion. When the now agreement was entered into on December 17th it was a condition that the month's wages should be paid on Tu-sday, but being still unpaid on tlte Thursday defendant was asked for payment, and he expressed his intention of reta ; ning the month's wages. Tint was altogether illegal, and was a sufficient reason for plaintiff leaving. Judgment would be for the amount claimed, £3 7s 6d, and costs £\ 13s. _ In the case of Sommerville v. Morris defendant confessed, judgment for a like amount.