MAGISTERIAL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXXVII, Issue 4021, 30 March 1917, Page 8

MAGISTERIAL.

ASHBURTON—THI3 DAY

(Before Mr Wyvern Wilson, S.M.)

Damaging Roads

William Morse (Mr Buchanan) pleaded guilty to a charge of driving a waggon behind a, traction engine, the. tyres of such waggon being less than six inches in width.

Mr Buchanan stated that the tyres were five inches wide, and the waggon was carrying a very small load. Defendant did not go in for contract hauling, and only drove the waggon about three times in the year. He submitted that there was no damage done to the road. *.

The Magistrate said this' was'' va matter of importance in the Ashburton district, where farming was carried on to such an extent. It was necessary to keep the roads in a. good state of repair/ A fine of 40s and costs (7e) was inflicted. .

Claim for Bonus. Stephen Ede (Mr Kennedy) claimed from Cfiri C. , Roberts (Mr Buchanan), the'iiurp. of £10, amount of a harvest bonus alleged to have been promised to plaintiff by his employer (defenMr Kennedy stated that defendant .engaged plaintiff to work for him at a wage of £100 per year and a harvest bonus of £10, but at the conclusion of the harvest defondant refused to pay plaintiff the bonus. Stephen Ede, farm labourer, of Wheatfitone, stated that he was engatrod by defendant to work for him at '£100 per year and a £10 harvest Tbonufl. He worked for defendant For eight months, and then witness gave defendant a month's notice, and before leaving nsked defendant for his wages and bonus. ' Defendant refused to give him the bonus, saying that it was to have, been a yearly one. He worked for defendant in previous years, and had always received n harvest bonus. To-Mr Buchan: He was positive that a harvest bonus ,\ and not a yearly one was promised him by defendant. Mr Buchanan ontlined the case for defendant, and called Carl O. Roberts, farmer, of Alford Forest, who stated that he engaged plaintiff nt a wage of £100 per year anct a bonus. There was no mention of a harvest bonus. All his employees were engaged on the same system. If plaintiff had remained in his employ for 12 months he would have received a bonus. . He had engaged^ plaintiff a yenr rvr two previous to this, and had paid him an annual .bonus and not a harvest bonus.

The Magistrate-said the case had arisevn through no definite, arrange,menta being made. Plaintiff thought it; w.aa ft harvest bonus, whij« defentjpint maintained it wns a yearly bonus fo,r faithful service. The .only reasonable wny was'to pay plaintiff' w.hntnart of the bonus h'« had f>«m<vl. .Tudr'Tn&nt was civon for nlnintiff for £6 18s 4d —two-thirds of the bonus.

No Authority to Sue. The, Christchurch. Drapers'. Assist- j ante' Union claimed -from Andrew Orr | and Co. (Ashburton) the sum of £20, as a penalty for failing to give a halfholiday on the Thursdays before Christmas and New Year. The award for Canterbury provides that drapers shall close on their statutory half-holiday, even if other holidays* fall during the same week. In the case of . Christmas, New Year, and Easter weeks, the drapers may keep open on their statutory halfholiday, which in the award was specified as Saturday. This is suitable to Ohriafcchurch only, as Saturday afternoon is the statutory half-holiday there, while Ashburton and Timaru observe Thursday as a statutory halfholiday. The assessors at the Arbitration Court were Christchurch men, and thus Saturday, instead oF the statutory half-holiday, was inserted in the award. The defendants, like other drapers, realising the error in the award, 'interpreted it to suit Ashbtfrton, and kept open on the Thurssdays mentioned. Hence the union's action. i

Mr R. D. Martin, secretary of the Drapers' Assistants' Union, appeared for the plaintiff union, and Mr Buchanan for defendants.

Mr Martin said the union had been reluctantly compelled to take action owing to the Labour Department refusing to do anything in the matter.

Prior to hearing legal argument, the Magistrate, on examining Mr Martin, elicited the information that all members had not been circularised regarding the- meeting at which authority, to prosecute was to be given. Thus the meeting was invalid, and no authority, therefore, could be given to prosecute.

The Magistrate said the. case was to recover n penalty from defendants under the- reading of the award. There did not appear to bo any authority for the action. In the first place., the meeting authorising the action was not properly called, and therefore any derisions nt that meeting were invalid. Jiulccment. was therefore given for _ defendants, with £2 2s costs ■against plaintiff.