MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Waikato Times, Volume 107, Issue 17975, 21 March 1930, Page 8

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

CASES AT CAMBRISGE. LENGTHY SITTING. RACING DISPUTE. (Special to Times.) CAMBRIDGE, Thursdav The monthly sitting of the Cambridge Magistrate’s Court- was held at the Courthouse this morning, before .Mr F. \\. Platts, 3.M. Associated on the Bench was Mr H. Alan Bell, J.P. Prohibition Breach. John Wiley Burns was before the Court on a breach of his prohibition order. Constable Jones stated that on March 6 hc saw Burns at the Cambridge Show very much under the influence of liquor. It was tiis first breach. Convicted ami lined 40s and costs Us. Maintenance Arrears. Donald Mackay, of Putaruru, appeared before Llie Court, charged by Rose Harriet .Mackay, of Cambridge, with arrears of a maintenance order of lUs per week in respect of his four children, totalling £l2, also solicitor's expenses, £2 2s. Counsel lor Mackay stated that his client had paid £3 2s off tlie arrears since the laking of proceedings. Mackay was earing 15s a day, but he had much broken time, it was not a case of wilful default, but inability to pay. Complainant's counsel said it was observed Unit .Mackay could afford to go to Ngaruawaliia to the regatta, lie would he prepared for tlie case to be suspended for a month, provided Lire arrears were paid up. -Mackay was convicted and sentenced to three months’ imprisonment in default, tiic order to be suspended subject to the payment of £8 on the 2(Jth of next month and the regular payment of £2 a month in accordance with the order, plus 3s a week off the balance ol’ arrears.

Ciaim To r Wages

A claim for payment of wages due amounting to £ll 17s ltld, was preferred by' Arthur Desmond Morris (Mr Darcy Smith-, Hamilton) against lA. Hop wood, contractor, of Cambridge (-Mr Garrard), a set-off also being filed by the defendant. The plaintiff in evidence -said lie was in employment at ltoto-o-rangi. He commenced .working for Mr Hopwood on June 28 as a farmhand, and he and his wife were paid £3 a week as milkers. The arrangement was that a third hand should come on in two months’ time to relieve plaintiff’s wife. After he had been on the place a little while Mr Hopwood expressed himself as thoroughly satisfied witli their work. Some time later, as the result of a difference with defendant i over the sale of a pig, he handed in his | notice to leave in a month's time, on j September 26. Eventually it was j agreed that plaintiff and his wife i should leave in a fortnight. Plaintiff I

prepared a statement showing the ! balance of wages due, but defendant replied that tie had several little claims to settle up, and he refused to pay the amount. Plaintiff got a third | milker six weeks after plaintiff went on tlie farm, and lie left a week before plaintiff. Winifred Rose Morris, wife of plaintiff, gave corroborative evidence. Robert Harold Marx, farm hand, of ■ Roto-o-rangi, gave evidence as to taking a pig from the farm to be sold, j When he asked whose name it was to j be sold under, there was no reply j until Mr llopwood said if plaintiff re- j garded it as his pig lie had belter sell i it in his nameFred Walters said lie started to work for .Mr llopwood on September 10, and left his employ on Wednesday last. He had had no trouble in getting his wages. The defendant, Nicholas llopwood, said lie offered £5 a week for three milkers. Plaintiff told him that lie had a cousin who could come in a fortnight’s time from plaintiff’s starting. He replied that he did not mind a week or a fortnight. Between the first week and fortnight he asked i plaintiff when the third milker was. ! coming, and Morris replied that the young lady had been and seen the farm and had gone back. Defendant had had to take extra labour on at the farm to assist, as plaintiff bad got ! behind with the work. Regarding the difference over the pig, in the first . place he had stated that he would not . say how much he would.charge plain- . tiff for the pig until it was found out whether castration had been successful or otherwise. As the result of plaintiff’s hurried leaving of the farm ( ho tiad had to go out to milk the , cows with assistance he took out. ' For the non-employment of tiie third milker he was setting off at the rate ( of £1 JOs a week, also £3 14s for j wages lie had had to pay Hie assistant t lie took out to milk, owing to plain- i ( tiff’s hurried notice to quit, and £5 £ for loss of time, covering four days- 1 Alfred Oliver Lowe, share-milker, of Leamington, corroborated defend- | ant’s evidence regarding plaintiffs de- | parturc, and having to go out and milk i the herd for several days. He reeciv-

ed £3 14s for his services The .Magistrate gave judgment l'or plaintiff for £5 3s iOd, defendant be- [ ing allowed his set-off of £3 14s for special labour, and iiis own expenses, £3. After deduction for the set-off plaintiff was allowed costs totalling £4. Trainer and Jockey’s Dispute. ■The claim of Arthur Harris, of Cambridge (Mr O- J. Lundon) for fill His against W. J. McLean, horsetrainer, also of Cambridge (Mr Garrard), was also a dispute over wages. The plaintiff, Arthur Harris, a registered jockey, said lie agreed to work for defendant a. the rate of £1 5s a week. A statement was handed in to the amount of the claim. To Mr Garrard: He was engaged at Hie rate of £i 5s and not at £1 a week. He worked for Mr McLean for 4G weeks, and in January of this year lie submitted an account to the defendant. Samuel Carter, draper’s assistant, said he was present with Mr Harris when he approached Mr McLean for a job. Mr McLean had replied that he would employ plaintiff at the rate of £1 5s a week and found. Walter James McLean, horsetrainer, of Cambridge, said lie employed the plaintiff on June 10. There was little doing, but as plaintiff was out of work he told him lie could start. Defendant aske.d him what he had received at Thames. It was £t a week, and defendant, agreed to employ him at the same rate. Robert Donald Caider, stable hand, said he was employed by .Mr McLean at the rale of £1 per week and found. It was the usual rale of pay. Judgment was given for plaintiff for Die full amount, with costs against oefendaut totalling £i 3s j