A CLAIM FOR WAGES.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 310, 9 February 1910, Page 2

A CLAIM FOR WAGES.

f ;HAFFEUR AND MOTOI OWNER. -A claim for wages in the B.M. Court yesterday morning occupied the attention of the Magistrate for about an hour. The parties were a young man ■named Walter Balsh, describing himself as a chauffeur, and until a week or two ago a hotel porter, and Robert William Bond ; proprietor of the Criterion Motor Garage. The plaintiff came to New Plymouth upon receipt of a telegram from an acquaintance, and was engaged on the following day by tlie defendant as a chauffeur at an agreed remuneration of £2 10s weekly, and expenses incurred whilst driving the firm's ears. This the plaintiff understood to include payment of his expenses from Wellington, but the defendant and his manager, Edmonds, swore that there was no such arrangement, as the man was engaged here, and not at Wellington. On the first day in the garage the defendant's manager became satisfied, he said, that Balch was not the mechanic he had claimed to be, and a few days later, upon a car ''jibbing" near Opunake, he turned his passengers out and walked with them into Opunake, leaving the car. The defendant went out and effected repairs, which were only ordinary roadside repairs that any chauffeur with experience should have been able to do. The damage, according to the defendant, was' caused by Balch's neglect of lubrieation, but he claimed it was due to the weakness of the car. On Saturday evening, when Balch was about to be paid, Bond told him he wasn't worth £2 10s a week, as he was only a driver, and offered him £1 10s a week, so that he could gain some experience. Balch declined to take less than £2 10s, and as'ked his employer if he " called himself a white man to offer such wages." Then, according to the story of Balch and Edmunds, Bond threatened to strike the plaintiff, and he left, whether of his own volition or upon the instructions of defendant being a matter in dispute. Plaintiff declined to take his wages, and seut a lawyer's' letter after the money on Monday, he himself not going back to work. He claimed for his v. k's wages, less a small advance, and for a week's wages in lieu of notice. Bond counterclaimed a week's wages in lieu of notice. The S.M. came to the decision that Bond had given the man a week's notice, but that the plaintiff's inexperience 'had r.ot been proved. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £2 3s, and defendant was non-s'uited. Costs against the defendant amounted to Gs.