LADY CORRESPONDENTS SALARY.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVI, Issue 230, 27 September 1915, Page 8

LADY CORRESPONDENTS SALARY.

WHO l> LIABLE! ?nme interesting points were ranrd at the Magistrate* Court during argument in rtjipoct t<. a claim for wipe*. Tlio plaintiff. Gerraa Run. if (Mr An<ler- • ■mi Micd George W. llul.'.ii.Min i i< liquidator of t!io "Bulletin" I'nntiiiji Company) for the »nm of £24. ellrtfpd to be «nc to plaintiff for -erne*-* reti dered a« hi iv corre-;xir, ient to the "Bullctm" lit the rate of 3D per wwk. There was practically no dispute a* to the fjcta of tlie inc. Kuclciu-c wa« given by the former editor of tile ••Bulletin," Mr. I'imben. tue plaintiff j hail Iμ-mi employed at the rate »Utcd. Plaintiff also gnve evidence in ,uj»|> >rt of her claim, and defendant «»» culled by pUintifTa solicitor to etate. hiIt was explained tint Mr. Manr'ce O'Connor .(.is a debenture holder, an,I 1 tiut the liquidator had banded the asset* to tluit gentleman, who Kα* o him a personal discharge from any furthei liability. Hμ Worship «<iid that in cquitj". if not; at law. it was perfectly clear the lady wa* entitled to be paid her wagi*. liulj as far ,t« the defendant was concerned he ha.l uo personal liability, having got an exemption from the debenture holder. Mr. Anderson argued that the dut\ nni thrown upon the liquidator of pnyinj nil wajftM due. Mr. I'rendergaet pointed out thnt if a debenture holder was to lie made liable for wage*, then on the line ground a mortgage holder might be anted to pay .vages of men employed upon land. He pointed out thnt three hhb<m were in eurred before liquidation. If there was an uctiun at all, lie contended it could not lie against the debenture holdir or •he liquidntor of the company. Mr. Anderson Miid the company had no fundi, therefore they sued the liquidator. Mr. Kettle said he had no doubt that Mr. O'Connor would pay the lady tin £24 if the facts were properly represented to him. The whole question wan were the wagm due to this, lady. It Mat. not to be denied they were. Therefore Mr. O'Connor, who had paid the other wagee, would no doubt pay this aliso. Mr. TrcDilergast argued that where a company «»« wound up voluntarily, any claims hhoiild go before the Supreme Court. Mr. Kettle pointed out the Act stated "the liquidator shall discharge all preferential claims." Mr. l'rcndcrgast argued thnt did not affect the rights of debenture holder*. Mr. Anderson argued that km the liqui dator had received the assets and had paid them away before this claim wan paid, he was liable. Mr. Kettle «aid he was satisfied the wages were honestly and justly due. and he wan astonished the defendant wa« not paid what she had earned. The real question was whether the Court had power to deal with the ease. It wn« clear that the wages ought to he pnid to plaintiff. I'nder the Wage* Protection Lien Act, section 4, the wages should be r aitl weekly. Apparently that was not done in thin cnec. I'nder the Act that wax an offence, nnd tlio ofTendri was liable to v fine of £50 or a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months. If the Labour authorities took the matter up someone would have to pay. The liquidator »iv not under nn\ personal liability, us he had been indemnified by Mr. O'Connor. He wne, however, satisfied that if the matter was represented to thnt gentleman the cheque would he forthcoming. Mr. Prendergaet said he could only represent the matter to Mr. O'Connor aa put by his Worship, and with that object the caee was adjourned until next week