A HOUSEKEEPER'S SERVICES.

Taranaki Daily News, 29 November 1916, Page 6

A HOUSEKEEPER'S SERVICES.

HEAVY CLAIM FOR WAGES

JUDGMENT GIVEN FOH let

A wages claim of an unusual cliaracs ter was heard before Mr. A. Crooke, S.M,; in the Magistrate's Court yesterday,when Mary Buxton, widow (Mr. A. H. Johnstone) sought to recover the sum of ,£l2l 17s Cd from Binnie Hamilton Somervail, settler, of Smart road (Mr. J. E. Wilson,' as housekeeper's wages alleged to be due to plaintiff. In outlining the case, plaintiff's coun- 1 sel said that for many years, Mrs. Buxton had been intermittently employed by Mr. l Somervail as his housekeeper at his home in Smart road. The present claim related to a period extending from July 27, 190!) to March 28, 1913, and was based on the offer of 12s 6d per week which had been made by defendant as recompense for plaintiff's services.

NO AGREEMENT COME TO. The plaintiff gave evidence that;-she had acted as housekeeper for defendant intermittently for nine years. When she commenced work at his house in Smart road on July 27, 190!), no arrangement was come to as to the rcmunertljtion she should receive, ant was in poor financial circumstances Defendant promised, however, to pay her well when money, which he expected from Home, came to hand. Plaintiff said when she entered defendant's employment in 100!) she did so because of hei affection for defendant's son who had lived with her since hcy'was a child. In 1913, when plaintiff had spent over three years in defendant's employ, her son, iir. T. Buxton. saw the defendant and asked him if he intended to pay plaintiff for her services. Defendant oito pay 12s fid per week, but plaintiff, knowing that defendant was in straitened circumstances felt that lie could not afford this, and agwed to accept £OO in full satisfaction, the money to be paid by regular instalments within two years. She lcarnod that defendant had authorised the Public Trustee to pay her ,£G(), but he afterwards cancelled the authority. The sum of £24 had been paid into Court.

To Mr. Wilscn: Her affection for defendant's son and hei? knowledge of defendant's affairs were the main considerations which weighed with her in accepting only £6O. Defendant had given her furniture, it was true, but she had kept his son for many years.

To the Bench: Mr. Somervail had undertaken to pay plaintiff as soon as he liad funds. AUTHORITY TO PAY WITHHELD.

Ernest Barnes, district manager for the I'nblic Trust Office, deposed that from 1913 onwards, the Public Trustee had managed defendant's affairs, subject to his direction. Witness had had conferences with Mrs. Buxton relative to her claims. Defendant had authorised the Public Trustee to pay .CdO 1 to Mrs. Buxton and £2l 12s Id for household expenses. When the authority was first given there was insufficient moliey standing to defendant's account to meet the claims, but soon afterwards a con, siderable sum of money came to Imndtj Witness produced v a document receive# from the head office stating that the authority to pay Mrs. Buxton had been cancelled until Mr. Somervail had been communicated with.

Mr. Johnstone proposed to go into the box to give evidence himself, but Mr. Wilson said he would be prepared to accept Mi'. Johnstone's statement. Mr. Johnstone then said he had applied on behalf of plaintiff for the £6O that had been authorised, but had been informed that the authority had been cancelled. As far as he knew the cancellation was unconditional. Mr. Wilson said his client had had for many years a hard struggle to make ends merit. Mrs. Buxton, who had a strong affection for defendant's son. went to Smart road, and took up her residence in defendant's house. No arrangement was made with regard to remuneration. Plaintiff used.defendantsproperty on which she fed a few cowhand other live stock. At the same tim she \yas getting her living at the house. Undoubtedly she was working for that It liad been plaintiff's intention to r eompense her, and the gratuitous offer 12s Cd per week had been made by hir.

, MAGISTRATE'S OBSERVATION. The magistrate observed that it was absurd that n j definite arrangement had been made. Proceeding, counsel submitted that no contract regarding the 12s (id had been made. Equitably, it would be recognised that he should make some payment, but there was no contract to pay. THE DEFENDANT'S VERSION.

The defendant said that 110 arrangement had been made concerning payment until two years after Mrs. Buxton had taken up her residence at the house in 1909. She used the house as her convenience and when the question of remuneration arose, defendant said he would pay her when 110 was in funds. Mrs. Buxton's stock had been running on defendant's hind for some years prior to 1909. In 1913, Mrs. Buxton intimated that she was leaving Smart road and was going to live in New Plymouth. As the, result of negotiations with Mr. T. Buxton witness agreed to pay Mrs. Buxton £1 per month for her services. Witness had previously agreed to pay Mrs. Buxton 12s lid per week for five years, but this was modified later. He told Mr. Thomas Buxton that he would pay £6O in consideration of what Mrs. Buxton had done between 1909 and 1913. Witness then wrote to the Public Trustee asking that no payment be made to Mrs. Buxton until witness had been consulted To Mr. Johnstone: Witness agreed that 12s fid per week was a reasonable amount to pav Mrs. Buxton. She would have received a great deal more than that had she not asked, for paymnt. He would have paid the mdpey he promised had Mrs. Buxton returned certain furniture she had taken from defendant's residence.

Counsel for defendant submitted that defendant did not cancel the order for the payment of £GO, and that plaintiff could have sued for the amounts as they fell due.

Counsel for plaintiff urged that defendant's cancellation of his authority to pay Mrs. Buxton £6O had broken the agreement concerning this amount, and that Mrs. Buxton was entitled to the full amount due as based on the offer of 12s dd made to her in the first place by defendant. NO CANCELLATION MADE; Mr. Crooke said it seemed to him that defendant's communication with the Public Trustee concerning the payment of £6O to plaintiff fell short of a cancellation. Judgment would be given for £OO, including £24 paid into Court, and costs.