SUPREME COURT

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10591, 25 March 1912, Page 6

SUPREME COURT

MASTERTON--SATURDAY.

(.Before His .Honor, Mr Justice Edwards.)

CLAIM i'Oil WAGES. A case was hoard in the Supreme Court at Mastorton on Saturday,- in . u'hich Evan Edrrard Jones, of Featherston, farm hand, claimed from John Thomas Bieknell, farmer, a sum of £551 13s (id, on account; of a balance of w-agoa alleged to bo duo and owing over a 'period of nineteen years. In the statement of claim it was set out that the plaintiff entered the employ of the defendant in March, 1892, on a. wages basis of CIO petyear r.iul kept. The plaintiff had drawn .€2OB (>:•; (id in wages and goods from time in time, and there was a ; balance of Ls~>l 13s 6d owing. Mr T. F. iMaunsell appeared for the plaintiff, ar:l Mr I'. L. Hollings for t.iio defendant. The plaintiff, on oath, deposed that lie entered (lie employment of the defendant in March, 1892. He had previously worked for him, and received 15s per week and found. When finishing up on the first occasion, the defendant said that work was slack, but if h'o (plaintiff) could work about the district he could come back again later. In March, .1892, the defendant asked witness if he would come back again. Witness went back, and, about three weeks after lie had started, the defendant asked what wages'he wan-t----od. Defendant said the ploughman was receiving £'s2 a year and lie could not expect -that-. Witness asked for £4O per year. Xo mention was made of .board and lodging. It was generally understood that this was in- addition to wiagcs. Witness believed that the defendant accepted the tenins. A payment of £4O a year and found was u reasonable wage twenty years ago. Witness was a general farm labourer, i and his services were as valuable as any other ordinary man. Witness was in the habit of receiving money, -clothes I and tobacco from the defendant as he [ required it. After witness 'had been i working for two -or three years, the defendant did not seem satisfied at- the way in which witness was drawing on him. Defendant asked if witness did not think it would be -better to allow inis money to run on, as lie had iheard witness talk of wanting a trip Home.. Witness agreed to the proposal, as lie was jiot particularly in want of the money. A year or two afterwards, witness approached the defendant for a settlement, - but 'defendant said lie could not pay at the time on account of I 'lris wife's illness. The matter was allowed to &t«iid~ over:'• Witness made a subsequent request for a settlement, but-did not remember''What reply- was given: Witness had been for iii>ic-., teen years in the employ of the defendant. Eventually things got "too iiot,"',;tuere being two masters, and witness left-. He gave a month's notice of his intention to leave, on February 2nd, 1911. The defendant said thai witness had taken him rather • short, «s lie had not the money with which to pay the wages. Oil March 2nd, 1911, the defendant asked witness to go hack into -the paddock with. I the dinner. Witness replied, "No, ' Jack; don't you remember the date: "I'm leaving this morning." Witness said lie did not wish to ihe hard oh the defendant, but if ihe would .meet him at Mr Card's office on- the following morning, they would endeavour to como to some toms. The defendant slid nothing as far as witness could remember. Witness went to Mr Card's office next- day, but the defendant did not appear, and Mi- Card was not there. Witness went on the following Monday to a job at the lower end of t.he Lake, and worked . there; until Easter.- A.t; Easter, 'witness went to Mr Card's'office; and asked if he had seen Mi('Bieknell. . Witness thenopened negotiations with the defendant, through Mr Card, but the letters were marked '"'without prejudice." The negotiationswent on for eight or nine months.' During the time lie had been with Mr Bicknoll, witness had received cash and goods to the Value of £2OB 6s 6d from the defendant.

Under cross-examination, witness denied that ho had received moneys which were not credited. He denied that ho, had 'been employed at 10s per week and found, or that he 'had-agreed, after being six years in the employment of the defendant, to accept his board', lodging and clothes. Witness gave notice -a year before he left, and asked for a settlement, but defendant took 110 notice of it. Witness left defendant's employ because he could not get on with tho son. . James Fiagan, horse-driver, of Wellington, deposed that in 1892 ho v/as working for the defendant. He had a conversation .with defendant in regard to Jones' wages, and defendant said ho had agreed to pay Jones £4O per year. Nothing was said -about hoard and lodging, but it was an understood practice that these should be given in. Witness considered that Jones was north £4O a year. This was tho case for the plaintiff. For the defence, the contract sot out in the statement of claim was denied. It was admitted that the plaintiff was employed iby the defendant at a wage

of 10s per week and found, and it was contended that this amount had been paid in cash or goods. It was alleged that the contract was terminated in 1898, owing to the misconduct of the plaintiff. It was agreed, however, that the plaintiff be permitted to remain on I the farm lor his hoard. lodging, and tobacco money. The defendant also j pleaded the statute of limitation. John Thomas Bicknoll, the defendant, deposed that in 1892 the plaintiff (-■lino into his employ. Ihe arrangement was to pay him 10s per week and lound. Tin's arrangement was continued .for about six years, during v, hich time i'ne plaintiff was over-paid. Witness kept no account, but paid hini 1892 he advanced him £5 to .send to his father in England. He also gave him money to go to the races, .to the theatre, and elsewhere. Witne.ss considered I t.iat he paid him, in all, about £-15 per year. In 1908 the plaintiff took |to drinking habits. He used to go I away, on Saturday, and return on Wednesdays. Witr.c-s said he would have to mend his ways or go. The plaintiff promised "to reform, and witness agreed to keep him on at 10s per fortnight, with tobacco, clothing, and pocket money. "This the defendant agreed to accept, and no fresh arrangement was made, 'i lie defendant made no iet|iie,':t for wages, and was given whatever money ho asked for. " The plaintiff was a, good man in his way. He was practically a rouseabout, and could not plough or milk. The plaintiff used to bail, and legropc the cows, feed tho pigs, wash:out the milk cans', mend tho fences -and do odd jobs. Plaintiff left oh March last because lie could not get on with the boy. During \ tho whole period that he.was with witness, the plaintiff never complained •that he received too little money, nor did he ask for a settlement. At the time he left plaintiff had received all the money that was owing to him. Witness had never tokl Fagan that ho had promised to pay plaintiff £lO per year.

Under cross-examination, .witness admitted that he did not -keep hooks. Thomas Benton, farmer, of Featherston, -deposed that lie knew the plaintiff as a sort of general hand who did odd jobs on the defendant's property, Witness would think that Fagan's services would he more worth £52 per year than Jones's would be 'worth £4O. Witness would consider the services of Jones were similar to those of a handy boy, worth about 10s per week. This was the case for the defendant. His Honor said lie was not satisfied with the case. Ho considered that the defendant had not shown that the agreement was a satisfactory one to the plaintiff. At the same time he did not consider that the plaintiff had fully established his case. His Honor considered that the case should be heard before a Wairarapa jury,, or, better still, should he settled by refer- ; ence to a couple of honest farmers. His Honor did uot feel that lie could give a decision in the matter. He would non-suit the plaintiff, -hut would not allow costs. If the plaintiff cared t;o take the case to a jury, he could do so.