RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Temuka Leader, Issue 1929, 13 August 1889, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Temuka—Monday, August 12, 1889,

[Before Captain Wray, KM.] civil cases. J. Patrick v. J, Amos—Claim £4.— Mr Salmond for plaintiff.—Judgment by default, and costs 6s. K. F. Gray v. M. Hayhurst—Claim £3 13s 6d, for advertising certain property, and auctioneers’ commission. Judgment by default for amount claimed, and costs 6si H. Gayson v. W. Davey—Claim ) £5 4s, for rent.—Mr Salmond for / plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed, and costa 19s. T. Barr v. J. Amos—Claim £317» Bd, for goods supplied.—Mr Salmond for plaintiff.—Judgment by default, with costs 6a. F. Harrison v. R. A. BarkerClaim £2, for 10 weeks’ wages. Mr Salmond appeared for defendant. Plaintiff, a boy of about 13 years, said : Mr Barker engaged me for 4a a week, and found. Don’t know when I went there. It was about the 11th May. I stayed 10 weeks. Mr Barker gave me a week’s notice at dinner time on Monday. I left on Sunday at 3 o’clock. Told Mr Barker I was going away. My father sent Mr Barker a letter. I saw Mr Barker before I left. Told him I was going, and he said he would not pay me because 1 was going before my time. I refused to stay because my week was up?on Sunday at dinner time. would be 8 days till Monday. The R.M. : That’s the way you count, but it is not right. (The Resident Magistrate tried to explain that his week was not up until dinner on Monday, but the lad persisted that it was up on Sunday). Plaintiff continued; Understand the set-off, which is for fines for the time I was absent on Sunday and Monday. Had no agreement that-1 would be fined for absences. To Mr Salmond: Didn’t agree to pay a fine of ds for absences. Knew it was the custom for absentees to be fined, and that the fines were given to the others who did the work. Knew what was done with the fines.- Received a share of fines inflicted 1 on others. , To the Bench: Had my week not been up 1 would have agreed to have been fined. Mrs Harrison, mother of plaintiff: I engaged the boy at 4s a week. Mr Barker did not pay the fines on the cheque. He paid the boy the fines in cash, and he spent them. 1 am suing, not the boy. The R.M.: The boy is suing,; not you, How much do you consider is owing to the boy ? ; Witness: I want £2. ; J The R.M, said Mr Barker was lowing more than was sued for, £3 2s, but deducted 10s for two fines. To the R.M.: Didn’t understand the fines were paid until the second cheque. Took the boy’s wages myself. He got the fines in cash. Told him to take the fines back, but he said he didn’t like to. E. A. Barker : I am defendant, and was employer of plaintiff. It is my custom to deduct 5s from the wages of any man absent from his work. I do not get the fines. The money is divided among others who do the work. Defendant knew of the custom. Told him what the result would be when be said he would leave on the Sunday, and he was perfectly cognisant of the fact. My custom is to give a week’s notice. On an average I employ three boys as milkers, and one man over them. There are, of course, other men about the farm. The defendant was getting the smallest wages. The other boys get 10s per week. The fines are the same in all cases., They are pretty heavy, and prevent the boys from neglecting their work. It was necessary to adopt such a measure, as if one employee was absent it put all the work out. :;t The R.M. pointed out that r the :fina» inflicted were equal to two and weeks’ wages. Defendant: If the men agreed amongst themselves to do each others’ N work when one required to be absent, it was all right; or if they came to him and said they wanted to get away for a special purpose they were allowed to go. , r To the R.M.: Think the boy came for his wages on Monday. Think it was owing to his father that He did not stay until the Monday. When I make an engagement with an employee I tell him of the rule that fines are inflicted for absences. The plaintiff’s mother must have known, because she received the fines. The boy was not taken by surprise; I warned him. Mr Salmond urged that even if the reason that ; the boy had left before his time was up was owing to a hna fide mistake it did not alter the matter. Judgment was given for plaintiff for f 116 s, 4s being deducted from plaintiff’s claim owing to his not finishing his time. The set-off for fines was disallowed. * EEHBAEIBU Mr W. Hayhurst applied for a rehearing in the case of,Gray v. M. Hayhurst, He said he arrived at the Court just after judgment had been given. His Worship granted a rehearing for next Court day. The Court then rose. 1