A SHABBY DEFENCE.

Evening Star, Issue 7613, 16 May 1888, Page 4

A SHABBY DEFENCE.

HOW LICENSED OUT CHILDREN ARE CHEATED. At the Resident Magistrate’s Court, Papakura, recently before Captain Jackson, the case Chadwick v. Wylie, a claim for LSB 10s wages, came on for hearing and developed some very peculiar circumstances. It appeared from the evidence that on the 27th June, 1879, Chadwick, then a boy between eleven and twelve years of age, was an inmate of the Howe street Industrial School, of which Mr Stickley was then master. On that date he was licensed out to defendant under a* agreement, which was in evidence, by which the defendant undertook to feed, clothe, and provide for the boy’s education, paying wages at the rate of Is per week, which was to be sent to the master of the Industrial School, and by him placed in the Savings Bank to the credit of the lad. The agreement was for one year, and at the end of that term the boy should bo either returned to the Home or a renewal of the engagement was to be made. In August, 1881, Mr Hogan took charge of the Industrial School, and on going through the books he found that Chadwick’s wages had not been paid for a period of two years and three months. He wrote to Mr Wylie and threatened proceedings, with the result that Mr Wylie paid the amount then due. On the 29th of July Mr Hogan wrote to Mr Wylie, informing him, and desiring him to inform the boy, that ho was now free from the control of the Home, and also from his (Mr Wylie’s) control, adding, “ at which I have no doubt he will rejoice, seeing you want a boy of his age .o work for Is a week. Please give the hoy the enclosed.” The enclosure was a letter from Mr Hogan to Chadwick under the same date informing him that he was now free from the control of the Home, and that ho must now make his own arrangements regarding wages ; also that Mr Wylie had remitted for him L 3 18s wages, and this he (Chadwick) could have at any time he chose, but he advised him to leave it in the Savings Bank until he needed it. The note concluded as follows : —“Should you have to return to Auckland, and be out of employment, you may rest assured that the Committee will continue to take an interest in v Hi, and assist y"ii in getting employ , "i .■■■. Ui" :iel -1 ! will 'I" ell in my J ■'•vu . y.»;.,** "i . ; 1 b;“,( i‘ Of iir Chadwick nnjthing eLm” the fact that he Mil.', five from the control of the Home, or that any fresh arrangements were necessary, and the boy continued wit!i him until February, 188 G. During that time he fre- , (juontly asked about his wages, and on each occasion the defendant informed him that his wages were sent to Mr Hogan, the master of the Industrial School. The defendant had noticed that the boy had a great dread of being sent back to the Home, and he appeared to trade on his fears by threatening to send him back, and so retained him in bis employ. In February, 1886, the boy,

being then grown up, determined to put an end to this state of adults, but he did not inform Mr Hogan, as he feared he would be apprehended if ho left Mr Wylie’s employ, but as lie had grown desperate he gave Mr Wylie notice that lie would leave. It was then harvest time, and Mr Wylie oll’cred him 5s a week to stay on, and this he accepted, .and remained in his service until May, 188G, when ho finally left and took service with a neighboring settler named Moore, a relative of Wylie’s, at the same wages, 5s per week. While there an accident occurred to one of Mr Moore’s horses which Chadwick was riding. Ho turned into a paddock to see where a fire had been, and while so engaged a man, who was mowing while under the influence of drink, ran the scythe into the horse’s heel and lamed it. Chadwick remained with Moore for thirteen months, and several times applied for his wages, but was met with the reply that when he paid L3O for the horse it would be time enough to ask for wages. The boy, not knowing that he was not liable, accepted this statement, but after thirteen months’ service he left Moore, and got employment at Mount Roskill, where he was paid 10s a week. In March this year he met a companion, formerly an inmate of the Home, from whom he learnt for the first time that he was free from the control of the Home, and on his recommendation Chadwick went to sec Mr Hogan in order to get the money which he believed was coming to him as wages for four and a-half years. Mr Hogan undeceived him by stating the facts to him: that during that period Wylie had paid no wages ; and Chadwick now sued for four years and six months’ wages at the rate of 5s per week. The defendant pleaded the Statute of Limitations in regard to the first eight months of the claim, and for the rest ho put in a set-off of L3l Its 3d for clothing supplied to Chadwick, and small odd sums yivon to him as pocket money on holidays.

In regard to the plea of the Statute of Limitations, Mr Williamson, for plaintiff, contended that by the suppression of the letter Wylie was guilty of fraud, which took the case out of the Statute of Limitations ; and with regard to the set-off for clothing, ho contended that plaintiff was entitled to his clothing in addition to his wages, and that defendant should be allowed this as a set off.

A number of witnesses called by defendant swore that the boy was worthless and lazy, and not worth anything. Defendant’s only excuse for keeping the boy was that he would not leave him ; but he admitted in cross-examination that he had not given the boy Mr Hogan’s message or informed him of its contents.

His Worship reserved judgment on the points whether in the suppression of the letter there was suflioient fraud to take the claim out of the Statute of Limitations, and whether the plaintiff should bo allowed the full amount of wages, or whether the set-off' for clothing should be allow'ed.— Auckland ‘Herald.’