TRUCK ACT CASE

Greymouth Evening Star, 22 April 1914, Page 2

TRUCK ACT CASE

THE WARDEN'S DECISION.

At Rcefton yesterday the Clerk of Court read the decision of (lie Warden (Mr. J. G. L. Hewitt) in the rase of Edward Col 7 lins v. Th© Progress Mines, Ltd., as follows :—•

"Put shortly, ih February last, being, short of labour, the defendant company sent one of its mine managers, Preston, to Tasmania, to pr.gage hands. He inter viewed, among others, Collins, the plaintiff, and after various discussions as to the rates of pay and conditions of labour on the Re of to: 1 field, undertook on behalf of the Company, to advance their passage money to New Zealand and to find them work in the Company's mine, the men agreeing to refund the passage money when they should get such employment. lu pursuance of that arrangement, Preston paid or refunded them their railway fares to Hobai't and their steamer fares from Hobart to New Zealand, taking a receipt from them for the amount so paid, in the case of the plaintiff for £8 10s as an "advance of wages." On arrival in New Zealand they were duly engaged in various capacities by the defendant Company.

After working for about two weeks this particular defendant was dismissed from the service, the Company owing him £6 12s ill wages. This sum the defendant lefused tn pay, claiming a right to keep it back in satisfaction protanto of the sum of £8 10s paid for passage money. The plaintiff now claims the sum of £6 12s for wages and the. defendant counter claims for the said sum of £8 10s.' So far as the claim is concerned, the defendant, in my opinion, should have paid the amount d its for wages in cash, and, in not ,!,>i.;g u>, lias arttd i.t Lrcuc'i

of the truck provisions' of- the "Wages ■ Protection and Contractors Lien .Act, 11903. (Seo sections 29, 31 y and.':3B,..3lsfj | Stemman v. Count ,de Oourte, 19 L.& j 174, and Williams and others v North | Navigation Company, Ltd., 1905 L'.'Rv appeal, cases, p. 136, and cases therein.. cited.) But as tho claim of the defend-'''' ant company is tot one of the class, pro'-S Incited as being set-off or' co'mj£ei'-| claimed for under Section 32 of the. said*: j Act, it could have succeeded in a sep>'-# j rati' action. I see no reason why I ebouldt I not enforce it by counter-claim in theJ present case. The fact that the'eompahy* ; attempted to secure the payment to ' : tn'sr» $ of this money advanced for passage ~ ney by a charge on any wages that might?;. be subsequently earned by "the men does * not. in my opinion, affect the position. $ At most, it appears to me, the attempt- £■ ed charge would he bad. The ■ bargain S made with the men was that fho Com-i| pnny should advance the passage money* to enable the limn to reach New- Zealand j* aiid should then provide for their ent-!?| P'oyment of the nature agreed upon.mg \ In* Company's mjr.es, and, having 3one,|» this, I think the Company is entitled to? recover the amount advanced. There was» : no agreement to employ the plaintiff for -j, ai-y particular term, and, being difesatis-Si fic<l with him, (he Company were to dismiss him " ' y $'

As to .the question of the want of jiir-l tedietfon to hear the counter claim,' 7 1 $ think that in the above view, as it'was«': necessary for the Company to prove that*] employment had been found for the plain-* tiff in pursuance of the arrangement underv > which he came ovefT'as well as-th&;ad-3> vance. that this is a material part ofth,e'*i cause of action and as it arrives within* the district, that I have jurisdiction; to* deal with the counterclaim. • '■ i .j* Th c net result is that■■judgement.will» be for the defendant for the sum of 13s. No costs." *■ ' ".'