MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Evening Star, Issue 24004, 1 October 1941, Page 9

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

CLAIM FOR WAGES DECEASED FARMER'S ESTATE A special sitting of the Magistrate’s Court was held to-day before Mr H. J. Dixon, S.M., to hear a claim by Mary Ann Tyler, of Dunedin, widow, to recover the sum of £3OO from Joseph Albert Pedofsky (Port Chalmers) and Annie Veronica Potbury (Auckland), executors of the will of John Pedofsky. Mr R. C. Rutherford appeared for the plaintiff and Mr C. L. Calvert for tho defendants. In her statement of claim plaintiff alleged that the amount owed to her by defendants was more than £3OO, representing wages owing to her and moneys lent by her to John Pedofsky, of Middlemareh, farmer, who died on May 2, 1941. The amount claimed was made up of £297 in wages at £1 a week from August 22, 1935. to May 2, 1941, the remainder being due, it was alleged, for moneys lent to pav an instalment on a radio in July, 193 G. Tho plaintiff abandoned the amount exceeding £3OO, and claimed to recover £3OO. Mr Rutherford said that plaintiff was employed bv the deceased from a period in 1913 as a housekeeper. For the first nine weeks she was paid at the rate of 15s a week, and subsequent to this pavments over a period were very spasmodic, and no fixed amounts were paid. The deceased’s position was not good, and he promised plaintiff £2 a week when his position improved. The position cot no better, though payments were made from time to time. 4t one time during this period the plaintiff was injured, and she received insurance com-

pensation at £2 a week, based at £1 a week wages and £1 a week keep. Since the plaintiff was a party to that arrangement her claim was based on a wage of £1 a week. Evidence in support of the claim was given Iby the plaintiff, and she stated that at one time she signed some receipt forms which he said ho wanted “ for the Government.” He promised then that he would give her the amounts which she had receipted. She did not receive them, and she refused to sign any more receipts. Deceased had assigned an insurance policy to her to repay earlier loans which she had made to him. Witness had built up a poultry business, but there was little left over after the expenses had been paid. In cross-examination, witness told Mr Calvert that she had not mentioned to him or to deceased’s son the amount due to her for wages because she did not know how to go about it. Witness denied that she got her wages regularly every ouarter. She had got very little from Pedofsky during the last six years.

Mr Calvert said that this was one of the classes of cases which required, as a matter of practice, corroboration. That was entirely lacking. In this case the executors defended the case because of a firm conviction that their father would not allow anyone to work for him without paying the wages, due. There was no excuse for the delay in bringing the claim. If the claim bad been made in the last six years the deceased would have been able to answer it himself. Mr Calvert said that £l2 bad been naid into court representing the full amount the executors considered was duo for a quarter’s wages. Counsel submitted be was entitled to a. nonsuit. the Magistrate stating that ho would reserve this question. At this stage the court adjourned until the afternoon.