DISTRICT COURT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 3202, 31 May 1909, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

CLAIM FOR WRONGFUL DISMISS \L. VERDICT FOR £4O. The Wairarapa District Court was occupied all day on Saturday with a case in which Thos. Hodge sued Robt. W.-Munn for £7O balance due to him as wages, or by way of damages for wrongful dismissal; or, in the alternative, the sum of £lO wages for the month of February. 1909, and the sum of £3O in lieu of three months' notice, or by way of damages for failure to give the same. Mr C. A. Pownall appeared for plaintiff, and Mr H. C. Robinson for defendant. The following jury was empannelJed:—W. B. Ohennells (foreman), John Judd, James McKenzie and W. A. Home. The statement of claim set out that defendant engaged plaintiff as cheesemaker for the season, ending about May, 1909, at a remuneration of £l2O for the season, of which plaintiff had received £SO; defendant wrongfully dismissed plaintiff on March 2nd, 1909, and refused to allow plaintiff to finish his season, although plaintiff was willing to do so; plaintiff was seriously damaged by such wrongful dismissal, as his work for the remainder of the season was the easiest part of his work, and, being dismissed during a current season, he had no opportunity of obtaining any work at his said occupation elsewhere for that season. In the alternative plaintiff claimed that if he was not engaged for the season, then he as a yearly servant, and, as such, was entitled to three months' taotica, which the defendant failed to givo him. Mr Pownall, in tracing plaintiff's evidence, said that quoting from the New Zealand grader's notes, plaintiff's cheese was all marked first grade, and was given 88 points right through. Testimonials would be produced to show thac plaintiff was a qualified cheesemaker. Counsel called — Thomas Hodge, cheesemaker, of Carterton, said he had been cheesemaking for nine years. He had worked for the Taratahi Cheese Factory, Mr H. R. Bunny, Ahiaruhe, for the United Farmers' Co-oper-ative Association, and for other factories. The recommendations produced were given to him from his I several employers. In July, J witness engaged to go to defendant as a chesemaker, at a remuneration of £l2O for the season. The season generally lasted nine months. A bonus was also promised at the end of the season if a house were not built for his use. The season lasted from about September to May. Witness commenced in August, and ! until dismissed heard no complaints. ■ On January 28th witness was disi missed. At that time the worst of I the season was over, as a high \ quality of cheese was easier to be i obtained through the milk improvI ing. The boiler was not of sufficient I power to generate the requisite heat j in a given time, and the proces3 re- • quired four lots of boilings instead ! of one for the one lot of cheese. The was far from up-to-date; j tnere was no concrete floor. Defendi ant promised to stir the milk of a ! night, in plaintiff's absence, which ! was seldom done, and in the morni ing the milk was overripe. Witness j complained of this "to Mawson, the J milker on the place, and to defendant, of the other defects in the factory. Defendant said tnat was all he could do for that season. None of witness" cheese was graded under 88. The best cheesemaker m the Dominion did not average more than 91 and. 92. Witness was given notice on January 28th to leave in a month. Witness received £SO on account of work done, and refused £lO in lieu of notice. Witness was given no reason for his dismissal. He judged that defendant, from questions asked, was not- satisfied with the quantity of cheese being made, witness remarking that he had no control over that as he did riot have the handling of the milk prior to its bringing into the factory. Witness continued his work until the month had expired, and then refused a cheque for £lO, stating that he wished his full season's money. Benjamin Rayner and Harry Rayner, farmers, of Masterton and Carterton, respectively, and cheesemakers, gave expert evidence. This closed plaintiff's evidence. Robert Wm. Nunn, defendant, admitted that defendant was employed for the season MacEwan and Sons' grader's reports at Home showed the cheese made by plaintiff to have adverse comments made upon it. Witness went into the factory on January 28lh, and found Mawson with > , a jam jar in his hand. Later, going J!< into the curing room he found the II jar full of cream on the shelf. | Plaintiff, on being interrogated, j said it was some cream he was takI■, ing home. Witness said plaintiff • I had no right to take it. and plaintiff i replied that it was a privilege of all ' factory managers. Witness said, "If | you are not satisfied with your milk I and cheese you had better take a I month's notice, and I'll get another I man." Plaintiff replied, "I'll go I now, if you like." Witness answered {he did not desire that. At the- end of I ! the month witness tendered a cheque ' ■ for £lO, which plaintiff refused, say- [ j ing he wanted his season's pay. This

witness refused. Witness never promised, as plaintiff asserted, to stir he milk. By Mr Pownall: Witness was not dissatisfied with the plaintiff's cheese prior to the dismissal. He only found the one jar of cream, but he had heard that plaintiff systematically took cream. No attempt was made to conceal the jar of cream in the freezing room. It stood openly on a shelf. Donald Calder Bower, manager, of Parkvale Dairy Company, gave expert evidence. Ernest Greathead, cheesemaker, Belvedere, James Mavvson and Alexander MawaGn also gave evidence. This closed the case, and counsel then addressed the jury, and His Honor summing up briefly. After five minutes' retirement the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff for £4O. Judgment was entered for that amount and costs. Mr Robinson then gave notice to move for a new trial on the ground that the Judge misdirected the jury, in asking them to decide whether on the question of competency, plaintiff had been "utterly" incompetent, counsel stating that he had desired that a more modified word should be used. His Honor mentioned that he had used in his direction as a guide a recognised text book, and stated that Mr Robinson had practically assented to the direction. Costs were awarded plaintiff to the amount of £8 17s. The motion for the new trial was agreed to be taken on Monday.