RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2405, 29 September 1892, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka—Tuesday. Sept. 27, 1892. [Before C. A. Wray, Esq., R.M.] MAINTEWANCE. Rose Dailey was charged with failing to contribute towards the support of her children, Rose Dailey and Mary Bridget Dailey. Norah Dailey, the grandmother of the children, said that she had been maintaining the children for the last nine years. She had only received from the mother £8 during three years. Her daughter was in service, and Bhould be

earning about 10s a week. Witness thought that the least she should payshould be about 5s a week. Witness was allowed 50 rations from the Charitable Aid Board. She had no means but " herself and God." She had received nothing from the parent for four months. Rose JDailey, the defendant, said she had given as much as 15s per month. On the last occasion she gave 10s. Latterly she had been unable to assist owing to ill health. She was leaving her situation owing to her health. She had been working for the last twelve months at 9s a week. She had done her best. She had contributed nothing the last two months owing to having to pay for medicines. She was now going to her father. He was under medical attendance also. She could not work through sickness and worry. Her husband haa deserted her and gone to America.

Mrs Purchase stated that defendant had been in her employ since February last. During the last two months she had been very unwell. Her father had asked her to take a rest. She was paid 9s a week. She suffered with a weak ankle at times, and just now witness thought she needed rest. His Worship said he would not make an order just now. He did not think she had done her best, and if she got fresh employment he should expect her to do more. He would adjourn the case for three months.

CIVIL CASES. H. Williams v. Job Brown Claim £54 2s. Mr Raymond for plaintiff and Mr Salmond for defendant.

In this case there was a cross-action for £49 17s sd. This was a claim for wages whilst employed by Mr Brown in carrying on a wheelwright's business. The full amount of wages was claimed and crodit given for sundry orders and cash payments made. The cross-action is for goods sold and delivered, for £49 17s sd. Practically there was no dispute that Williams was employed as a servant of Brown's as a wheelwright, nor was there any dispute as to the supply of the goods, but Williams claimed that Brown was not entitled under the Truck Act to deduct anything for the goods supplied, but should have been paid in money only. (Sections of Act quoted). The question narrowed itself down to the meaning of the Truck Act. (Section 7). H. Williams, the plaintiff, said prior to January, 1891, he carried on business with F. Colville. Mr Brown held a bill of sale over the plant. Williams & Colville filed their schedule in 1890. The assignee's interest in the bill of sale was sold to Mr Brown, who engaged plaintiff to carry on the business in defendant's interest. He arranged for 50a a week on the 23rd February, 1891. There was a private account (£26 14s 6d) due at the time of filing, and he agreed to pay this off out of wages if he got his own private tools back. Business was carried on until September 3, 1892, witness acting as Brown's workman. From time to time was supplied from Mr Brown's store with goods. In November, 1891, there was a balance of account (£2B 17s 2d) due by witness. From this account £l3 2s 6d, amount due for wages, waa deducted. Did not receive any cash. The total amount due for wages was £lO6 ss. Among tho items on the accounts rendered by Mr Brown were several lie ms 6i cash, which plaintiff had credited Mr Brown with. In the latter's statemeut some of these recurred. The goods supplied wero used for the house, and not in connection with his employment. Demand had been made upon defendant for payment of amount through his solicitors. By Mr Salmon d : Had received from Mr Brown goods to the value of £4B 19s 6d, ©id not intend to pay this at present. Mr Salmond : Is that your idea of an honest transaction ? Witness : That is my idea of this transaction. I object to the amount being deducted from my wages. Witness was then examined as to a number of details in the accounts, and certain rectifications made, which brought the recoverable claim down to £sl 9s. His duties were to manage the wheelwright's business and work himself. Th» business, syas ferried on at first in his own name, and aftervyacdg th_e name of Mr Brown as proprietor and witness ag manager. No arrangement was madfl by Mr Brown that these goods were to be, taken in lieu of wages. Witness some: times ordered himself, He could deal where he liked, Commenced account on November Ist. At that time there, W»» a balance duo to Mr Brown of about £ls, There was no arrangement that this was to be worked out befoxe witness received any cash as wages. By Mr Raymond: Had to do general wheelwright's work. Did not get current wages. The business was run |n big name to draw custom. There was n,q au : rangement that he was to work out an old debt. The arrangement was—he was tfi work out his old private debt and get frig tools. He was willing >SQ do this. Job Brown, merchant, Temuka t Era* ployed Williams in February, 1891, to manage a wheelwright's business at £2 10s a week. The business was formerly Williams's. Took over the business on the bankruptcy, and Jcept Williams as manager, H© was to keen th,« boojsfu

employ the men, and take his share of the work. During the time that he was engaged he received goods every month. There was no arrangement that they were to be taken as wages. Sometimes Williams took the goods himself, and sometimes his children did so. Accounts were rendered to him monthly, and when he (Williams) rendered his claim the store account was adjusted. There were no wages due to Williams until the £ls balance was worked out. It would take about six weeks to work this out. During the six weeks he received certain cash, that would make it seven weeks before he would work it out. During this time he received <{oods to the value of £8 10s, before there were any wages due. Had offered Williams his wages less this amount. He refused to receive the

money. By Mr Baymond : It was a cheque drawn ou Timaru that was tendered. There was generally another employee. Did not know that £3 a week was the current wages. Now gave an apprentice (the employee) 6s a day. Mr Salmond said he did not think it too strong to say that this was a most impudent and barefaced fraud, and he thought His Worship was entitled to atrain the Act to the utmost in favor of defendant Brown. He quoted Section 7 of the Truck Act, and maintained that its application to the case depended upon the goods lbeing supplied by the employer "on account of wages." The section was meant to prevent an employer giving goods in payment of wages. It was not intended to prevent an independent purchase of goods. It was to prevent the payment of wages in other than money. The only reasonable interpretation of the Act was that to debar recovery the goods must have been supplied as on account of wages. There was no evidence that this was the case, because during a part of the time there were no wages due. The test was : Could Mr Brown, in defence to a claim for wages, have pleaded that they were paid? He could not. He could »nly enter a cross-action. Further than rhat, the original agreement, if any, was made prior to the passing of the Truck Act, and remained valid subsequently. Having taken up an agreement which allowed of the deduction of goods supplied, he could not go bacd upon it now that the Truck Act"was passed. He further contended that Williams was not a workman in the consistent meaning of the Act. If the Act was read literally, then His learned friend and also His Worship were workmen. He contended that Williams' duties constituted him an employer under the Act, and as a matter of fact it was possible that he might have been fined for paying himself with goods instead of cash. He also pointed out that it was a penal Act and must be most carefully construed. It was liable to much misconception, and could be taken advantage of by unscrupulous persons. Mr Raymond said he would not open with vituperation like his learned friends'. It was sufficient that the Act was passed, and if they could bring themselves within the meaning of the Act they were entitled to its benefits. He reminded His Worship that the Act was passed for tne protection of workmen against unscrupulous employers. Persons who live in glass house's should not throw stones, and he would point out that according to the evidence Mr Brown had endeavored to recover a sum of some £26 which Williams was legally entitled to be released from. Mr Raymond then claimed that the interpretation of the Act was the entire amount of the wages due by an employer must be paid to an employee in cash, and that in auy action brought by a workman an employer could not put in any set-off or claim for goods supplied. His learned friend admitted that this was the literal meaning of the Act, and asked His Worship to strain some meaning of the Act in his client's favor. He quoted Wilson v. Cookson, 32 L.J., Magistrate's cases p. 177, a decision under an Act of William IV., upon which the colonial Act was based. The gist of this case was that the payment of any wages otherwise than in money was illegal, even when an employee had agreed to take a part in goods. Mr Raymond then traversed Mr Salmond's arguments, and contended that if Williams was not a workman it was hard to say who was. He was chiefly engaged in manual labor. He submitted that the struggle made to get out of this case was noi sufficient, and he claimed that there was no necessity for any straining of the Act. Mr Salmond briefly replied to Mr Eaymond'fl arguments in respect of Wilson v. Cookson, and contended that the case and that before the Court were on quite a different footing. His Worship said that there was no doubt as to Williams being a workman. With regard to Section 7 of the Act he was of opinion that he must be guided by its literal meaning, and not by any interpretation" of an idea. It was clear that no employer • who supplied an employee with any goods on credit was entitled to recover them by any process of Jaw. Judgment would be for Williams on the claim for wages for £sl ss, and solicitor's fee £3 3s, with costs. Mr Brown would be nonsuited.

Mr Salmond urged that no costs ehould be allowed. He could not imagine a claimant who was less entitled to costs. It was clearly a case of dishonesty. Hiß "Worship said he could not characterise a transaction as dishonest which the law made legal. Mr Salmond gave notice of appeal. H. Williams v. J. Brown.

In this case plaintiff claimed the return ] of certaiu tools, which Mrßrown had agreed to return in consideration of the plaintiff working off a private debt of £26 14s 6d due at the the time of the bankruptcy of Williams & Colville, and over which Mr Brown held security. H. Williams, the plaintiff, said that prior to the bankruptcy of Williams & Colville Mr Brown had taken security over the goods of the firm. At this time there were certain tools included which were his own private property. M Brown knew of this. Mr Brown provided for £2414s 6d in witness's private estate. In February, 1891, witness agreed to work for 50s a week, and Mr Brown said he would expect him to pay his private account, £2O T4s 6d. Witness agreed on pondjtjqn th_as \}k tq'ojs given under' bill $ safe, to' WiHianis & ppiyille should be handed back to him. Pe said he had no objection to his getting the tools provided he paid the private account- The tools when ho left were in tho shop., and he was not allowed to yemovp siem, One or two wprp aj; jus ' residents, and deletid&nt threatened to give witness in charge if they were not returned They were returned subject to decision as to ownership. Witness consulted his solicitor, who made a demand for thejr return. ffm]d rather haye the tflojs t,han }flonpy. $y Mr Saljiiqnd :VHa4 w° record of flip agreement'. Had no idea of the dispute until he went to remove the tools. L(Ocked the premises on Saturday nfght- Wli Wpn£ foj? tjm toojs wn 'Monday. It was not another attempt to get goods for nothing. The tools cost more than £lB.

W. Carston, wheelwright, said the proper ruto of wages for a competent

wheelwright was from £3 to £3 10s a week, Had asked £3 a-week from Mr Brown. F. Colville, wheelwright, Temuka, gave evidence as to the tools enumerated on list produced being the property of H. Williams. They were the tools of his trade included under the bill of sale. Valued them af from £lO to £lO. To replace them with new ones would cost £lB. The current rate of wages would be £3 per week. Job Brown, defendant, said that the arrangement he made with plaintiff was that he was to manage the business, and that if he paid off the private account he wouid set him to work. Did not know until yesterday that he made an entry in his eiary (produced) " Engaged Williams at 50s, and Eowe at 60s, and will allow Williams to redeem the estate if he can." Was certain the tools were not mentioned. Heard nothing about them until about the sth September, after Williams gave up possession. He came to the office with the books and key, and made no mention of the tools then. Found some of the tools were removed, and gave instructions that none were to be taken. Williams then said "he would make this cost Brown some pounds." There was nothing exceptional in making Williams pay an old account. The tools were only worth about £8 or £lO. He had removed the best of the tools under the bill of sale. By Mr Raymond : Had made no demand for the tools. Knew he had no claim for the £26. Did not know that 50s was less than the current wages. In the diary had not mentioned anything about the £26. The £26 had been paid by the debiting in the account. By his Worship : Believed he was accommodating Williams when he took him on. S. Clinch, builder, Temuka, said he volued the tools claimed at from £9 to £lO. His Worship, after reviewing the evidence, gave judgment for defendant, with costs.