FARM LABORER’S WAGES.

Taranaki Daily News, 17 November 1922, Page 5

FARM LABORER’S WAGES.

AN EGMONT VILLAGE CASE. BOY® CLAIM SUCCEEDS. A wages claim, bearing matters of general interest to farmers, was heard in the New Plymouth Magistrate’s Court yesterday before Mr. A. M. Mowlem, S.M., when Harold Parker (Mr. R. H. Quilliam) sued Vincent Gush (Mr. R. H. Brokenshire) for £23 4s Bd. Plaintiff, said counsel, was a farm laborer, aged 16, and at the end of September, 1921, he was employed by Gush, a farmer living near Egmont Village. The terms were the ordinary ones that prevailed in the district, viz. 10s a week and found in food, lodging and clothing. He started with Gush on October 1. On August 29 last the boy left as his patience was exhausted, for during the whole eleven months he had received, only eleven shillings in wages. As far as the clothing contract was concerned, Gush had supplied the boy with three pairs of second-hand pants and a second-hand shirt. The defence would be that Gush had kept the boy till he obtained employment, the boy meanwhile to be taught farming by Gush in return for pocket money, and tobacco. It was strange that this arrangement should be made at a time when farm labor was so short. The boy, hearing from a neighbor that ho was not to be paid, interviewed Gush on the matter and left. While working for Gush, Parker had been offered £1 a week by other farmers. Plaintiff gave evidence on the lines of counsel’s statement, lending variety to his narration by the production of a parcel containing the articles of clothing he wore while on the farm. A tattered garment was first held up to view by the witness. “What’s that?” asked the Magistrate. “A shirt,” replied the witness. “No, it isn’t,” corrected the Magistrate. “It’s part of one.” What counsel described as “a coat more or less” was next displayed, followed by a battered hat. several alleged pairs of trousers, and a pair of boots which had evidently peen their best days some years ago. Continuing his evidence, the boy said the work he did on the farm included ploughing, fencing, stumping, cutting blackberries, and so on, all of which, he agreed with counsel, went to make up a proper days work. A. C. Pegg, the boy’s present employer, and F. W. Carrington, who had offered the boy a job at £1 a week, gave evidence as to his worth. The case for the defence was practically a denial of all material points in plaintiff’s case. Gush, in the box, said he took Parker more out of sympathy, knowing that his mother was dead* and he thought the boy earned his keep and the tobacco supplied him. Witness himself had a farm under the discharged soldiers’ settlement scheme and all he could allow his wife to keep house on was 17s fid a week, so that he could not afford to pay for extra labor. J. B. Gopperth gave evidence as to a conversation respecting the arrangement between plaintiff and defendant, wherein Gush said that if Parker wa-> supplied with tobacco he was “set.” Parker was present and made no attempt to deny this statement. The Magistrate said the stories of the plaintiff and the defendant differed in all material points. However, in view of the evidence of Messrs. Carrington and Pegg he was inclined to regard plaintiff’s version as the more leaeonable and probable. The amount sued for also seemed reasonable and judgment would accordingly be entered, for plaintiff for the amount claimed ffijh coats 17a fid,