Magistrate's Court

Waimate Daily Advertiser, Volume III, Issue 166, 22 June 1901, Page 3

Magistrate's Court

(Before Major Keddell.)

Thursday, June 20th

Norton v. Ford—Claim £7 10s balance due for wages. Mr Clement for plaintiff, Mr Hamilton for defendant. Mr Hamilton stated that in August last plaintiff applied to the defendant for a situation, when the question of wages arose, and he was asked what wages he wanted. He had said he was receiving 25s at his last place. Defendant said he would give him £1 per week and 25b as a bonus in the busy time. Recently defendant had discharged him and refused to pay more than £1 per week, receipt for which plaintiff refused to sign. Joseph John Norton— Buing for balance of wages due. Entered into the service of Ford on August 14th last. Was getting 26s at last place. Defendant said he could not give more than £l, but would give more after Christmas. Went to work on those terms. Was not paid wages regularly. Was only one day off work, not six. Was a butcher and storekeeper; Also drjve cart. When he had claimed settlement defendant made out account to the amount of £lO ss, which he refused to sign. Had told defendant the reason, he wanted £l7los. Defend ant had promised a bonus, no bonus bad been offered him at time of settleinant. Defendant had told plaintiff that ho would give a bonus to a man who suited him. Plaintiff had had six days off, and at the time of settlement defendant told him about this. Walter Ford: Did not agree to give 25s per week. Plaintiff had been off on different occasions about six days. When plaintiff claimed settlement he had told him of the six days' pay which he was deducting, and plaintiff made no objection. There was no one else present when the agreement was made. Did not offer a bonus, and was not asked for one. Would have given a bonus of £2 to a man who suited. Mr Hamilton submitted that tne matter of a bonus was optional. Hie Worship, in summing up, said there had evidently been some inducement offered to the plaintiff, and the matter of having a few days off was a trivial one, seeing that it was passed over at the tune by the defendant. Judgment was juven for £5 8s lOd, with costß, 6s» and solicitor's fee, £1 Is.