Milton Magistrate's Court.

Bruce Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 179, 20 October 1903, Page 5

Milton Magistrate's Court.

(Before Mr G. Ocuickshank, S.M.) ~ John Anderton v. James M'Tague.— For . keeping three unregistered dogs. There was no appearance of defendant. Evidence was given by Inspector Anderton as to his keeping the dogs. — Fined 15s and 7s costs. " Anderton v.'- Reed. — For obstructing, the footpath with coal. The defendant pleaded guilty, and stated in extenuation that the coal had been ordered by Mrs Grant, and he had delivered part when Mr Grant refused delivery, and he had put balance in gutter, thinking Mr Grant would ultimately take the coal.— Fined 5s without costs. Executors' Dr Stewart v. J. Lister. — Claim £1$ 7s 6d.— Judgment by default, and costs £1 163 6d. i • ( ''" Kennard v. Wilson. — Claim £46, balance of wages due. Mr Thomson for plaintiff and Mr Reid for defendant!, AH witnesses- were ordered out of court. Mr Thomson, in opening the case, stated that his client was working for defendant for about four and a-half years, and as defendant did not pay him ; his wages as they fell due from time to time, the plaintiff did not know whether he was receiving, a rise in wages or not, and he now claims his wages at 5s rise : per ..week per year. Evidence for the plaintiff was given by James Kennard (father of. plaintiff) as to defendant employing his son. • After the boy left he went to Wilson fora settlement or a statement as to how his wages account stood, but never got any satisfaction, William Taylor, painter, stated that he paid his boys 7s 6d per week to start with/ and 5 s per week advance each year for five years, and "afterwards paid his boys if he conid not find work for them. Ge.orge.Murray Kennard, plaintiff, gave evidence that he started work with defendant in March, 1899, and after the first month was paid £1, but he did not get paid regularly after that time, although he remained in Wil- j son's service until December, 1901. He received employment in Outratn, and he asked Mr Wilson for a settlement, and Wilson said, " I will give you .£12," and would give me it the next week. At the time he gave £1, and a pair of boots. Got 35s per week from Mills at Outrain, and after a while went to Ashburton and got paid 7s a day in town, and Ss a day in country. Worked a good deal of overtime. Mr Reid, in opening case for defendant, submitted that the action should not have come before the court, as' the irregularity of payment occurred through the irregularity of plaintiff's attendance at work. The plaintiff left defendants' employ without any reason whatever, and he contended that plaintiff j should be non-suited. , B. Winn, painter, Lawrence, gave evidence that he paid boys 5s weekly first year, and rise ■of 2s 6d for four or five years afterwards. George Mitchell and T. Johnstone gave similar evidence. John Wilson, son of defendant, stated plaintiff was irregular in his attendance and was away a good many months. He came and went as he liked. George Wilson stated he had paid plaintiff 2S 6d rise at end each year. Was positive had always mentioned when paying the rise. Produced time book. Had kept record for first two years, afterwards owing to irregular . ; attendance of boy did not do so. Faid fairly regularly ; bank book (produced) showed amount paid in cash was Stated plaintiff had been away from work on various occasions, gave instances, one of which, during second year, away 17 weeks. Stated there were other •cases, where no record had been kept. When iplaintiff did not go to work at Brabyn's, told Mm he had better leave. Had never asked for more wages, appeared perfectly satisfied Employed another boy same time, who asked for rise end of first six months, declined, and he left employ. Kennard after he left stated he thought amount due was j£i2 or £14. Paid him £1 and pair of boots. Not true had admitted ,£l2 was due, but stated that there was only a £1 or so between them. After cross-examination Mr Thomson raised •the point that an arbitration award to painters, given in 1902, was a fair indication of the rate of wages ruling in this trade. •Quoting from the Labor Journal, he stated that >the award gave a yearly rise of ss, and that it "was a fair and reasonable evidence of the rate ■of pay ruling in the trade, and should be considered by his Worship in judging this case. Mr Reid combated this and pointed out that 'the contract between Wilson and Kennard was •ended in 190 1, whereas the award, was given iin 1902, and it was no evidence at all. His Worship said plaintiff's evidence was unsatisfactory, and he had not proved his case. JEIe would be nonsuited, with costs £2 9s. The counter claim of 18s for goods supplied ito Kennard, was struck out without costs.