RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Temuka Leader, Issue 1909, 27 June 1889, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Geraldine—Wednesday, June 26, 1889. [Before Captain Wray, KM.] UNSTAMPED WEIGHTS. Donald McKay, storekeeper, Peel Forest, was charged on the information of William Hallett, Inspector of Weights and Measures, with having light and unstamped weights in his possession. The Inspector said he had visited the store on May 7th, and found two weights, one four drachms and the other two drachms light. He also found two or three unstamped weights and an unstamped half gallon measure. The weights were but very slightly out, and in weighing would make but very little difference. He did not think defendant had any intention of defrauding people. He lived a long way from the office, and it was difficult for him to get his weights corrected. Constable Willoughby said that defendant, who lived some fourteen or fifteen miles away, had asked him to plead guilty. In reply to the bench he said that he considered it was purely accidental, as the defendant bore a first-class character for honesty. His Honor took the same view of the matter, and said that under the circumstances he would impose a nominal fine of ss, and costs 11s, the weights and measures to be forfeited.

CIVIL CASES. Caroline OTlarmigan v. B. Bayley —Claim £3, for six weeks’ wages at 10s per week. Mr F. Wilson Smith for defendant. Plaintiff being sworn deposed to being engaged by Mrs Bayley as cook at 10a per week. Stayed there five weeks, and then gave a week’s notice to leave. Stayed a week after giving the notice. Gave notice because she was told she did not suit. Asked for her wages, and was told she would have to sue for them. Was told she must give a month’s notice. Never made any agreement at the time of the engagement to give a month’s notice. To Mr Wilson Smith: Was engaged at 10s per week. There was no mention of £25 per year. The agreement was for 10s per week fora month, and if she suited her wages were to be raised at the end of the month. Plaintiff proposed she should get 10s per week for a month, and Mrs Bayley agreed to it and the rise at the end of it. The amount of the rise was not stated. Had always been engaged by the week before; never in any other way. In giving notice told Mrs Bayley it was no use one worrying the other any longer, she had better take 1 a week’s notice. Mrs Bayley said as soon as she could get another girl she could go. About 10 or 15 minutes afterwards Mrs Bayley told plaintiff she must give a month’s notice as she was a yearly servant. Plaintiff denied this, and claimed the right to give a week’s notice. Stayed the week, and on the Monday Mrs Bayley asked her to stay the month, or nntil she was suited. Declined to (Jo sp. Left about five o’clock in the evening. There were two other girls in the place. Had seen Mrs Bayley that day, and she had given her orders for the dinner and for the breakfast the following morning. Plaintiff did not tell her she would not be there the following morning. Saw Mr and Mrs Bayley before leaving, and told them she was going and the reason why. Asked for her wages, and was told she would have to sue for them as she was

engaged at £25 per year. Never heard of that before, and plaintiff said she was not. Mr Bayley afterwards sent a cheque for her wages, but 18s 4d short. Eefused it, and took it back. Had applied for her wages in the meantime. Her mother also applied twice. To His Worship: Was quite sure nothing was said about yearly payment. It was not mentioned, and she was engaged as a weekly servant, Sarah Kennedy, a fellow servant, deposed to hearing plaintiff give a week’s notice, and Mrs Bayley saying she could go when she got suited, also to plaintiff saying that she must find time to get away, For the defence B. Bayley, sworn, said he remembered the day the plaintiff left his service. Met her as he was coming from the stable. She said she was going away, and : Mrs i

Bayley said she could not go and leave her work like that. He then explained to plaintiff her hiring was by the year and what the consequence would be if she left. She denied she was hired by the year, and witness told her Mrs Bayley was quite clear on this point. She admitted, after some hesitation, saying to Mrs Bayley that £25 a year was small for a cook. Witness told her if she went away then ho should certainly not pay her one penny more than the law compelled him to. To Mr Wilson Smith: Plaintiff had never applied for the money. Witness sent her a cheque by the last witness—a month’s wages at the rate of £25 per year, which he considered was all she was entitled to. Had sent the money before it was applied for, and again since.

Mrs Bayley deposed to hiring plaintiff in her dining room. Plaintiff said £25 a year was too small for a cook, but witness told her that as she was 1 not a cook and witness would have to teach her it was enough; Took plaintiff on a month’s trial. She did not suit, and on speaking to plaintiff about it the latter said she thought she had better go, and witness said she thought so too. Told her just afterwards that she could not go at the end of the week as she was engaged by the year. Plaintiff denied being a yearly servant. The matter then dropped, and she heard no more about it till plaintiff was leaving. Had gone into the kitchen that morning, and ordered the dinner and also the breakfast for the following morning, and plaintiff did not say a word about leaving. When plaintiff was leaving in the evening told plaintiff she was engaged by the year, and must give a month’s notice. Witness had never engaged a servant by the week in her life. The consequences of her leaving in such a manner were fully explained to her by Mr Bayley. When she 1 hired plaintiff nothing was said about notice, as witness took it for granted that a yearly servant had to give a month’s notice.

His Worship said the facts as to the service performed were admitted. In England a month’s notice was always held as necessary for a yearly hiring, but in New Zealand the custom held that unless there was a special agreement re the time of notice a week was sufficient. This was where defendant had made a mistake. A week’s notice was the custom of the country, unless there was a special agreement, and this agreement had not been made. Judgment for plaintiff fer amount claimed.