CLAIM FOR WAGES.

Gisborne Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 5003, 18 October 1918, Page 6

CLAIM FOR WAGES.

INSURANCE AGENT AND MANAGER.

A claim for wages alleged to be due by Thomas Wellington Rapley an insurance manager of the National Mutual Society at Christchurch, to Ralph James Wildish, an insurance canvasser of Gisborne, was heard in the Magistrate’s Court before Mr J. S. Barton, S.M., yesterday. The plaintiff. Wildish, claimed from the defendant the sum of £64 alleged to be made up as follows: (a) The sum of £2 wages from the first of January, 1918, to 30th April, payable by defendant to plaintiff . in respect to an agreement for services made .between the parties-, dated Ist December. 1917, which wages the defendant’ had allegedly failed to pay. (h) The sum of £l2, being travelling expenses disbursed by the plaintiff on defendant’s behalf in respect to such employment. Mr Barnard appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Willock for defendant. Ralph James Wildish, the plaintiff stated, an agreement was entered into between the defendant anti himself in November, 1917, and signed early the following month. A stamped agreement was admitted under which plaintiff acted until April 4, when he had a letter from Mr Brewster. Until then he had no notice that his services, were being dispensed with. Air Rapley was in the habit of travelling about the country and would he away for days together. Until the notice witness continued to act for the defendant. The defendant sent him to Matawai and lie had to hoard there at a cost of £1 6s 6d for board and lodgings. Witness was at the Opqtiki Hotel for a week for which he paid £2 16. Oil another visit to Opotiki his hotel bill was £1 4s. He was there for three days. A trip to Te IC-araka cost him ixs * for two meals. He paid 26s or 27s Cel a case for benzine. He had expenses due to the breaking down of his motor bicycle, and he had other expenses. Ho spent £1 10s in respect to petty repairs to the bicycle. The defendant had not paid him an amount that was due. Cross-examined by Mr Y\ lllqcx plaintiff said ho did not remember Rapley going on a trip t° Wellington ‘but he subsequently heard than §d?h was the case from a fellow' employee. Mr Rapley was frequently away for a considerable time, hut he did not remember whether. it was at that particular time. He was certain that Miss Dumpliy, the lady clerk, did not hand him a letter containing his notice of discharge. Prior -o the issue of tlio summons, he had sent letters containing particulars ot his expenses. He .sent lus account for expenses on April 4, wheji he loged he was given his dismissal. He was a married man and had to pay the same whether life was away from Iris home or not. Mr Willock said that the defence would he. in regard to salary that the defendant agreed to. accept £~t> unconditionally, and . that money had been paid, whilst the defendant denied and liability .'to pay expenses. In an affidavit, made by the defendant lie stated that the defendant began to neglect his work. It was the duty of the blaintiff to call frequently at the office, which he did not do H e was not entitled to pay beyon the two months. He provided Wildish with a motor bicycle The plaintiff was not making a just claim, and even if it wa's it had been paid ±, T <> odd Another affidavit was put in by an agent who had worked at Gisborne. The plaintiff did not seem to he doing any business. Mary Dumphy. formerly in the employ of the defendant, stated that she first started working for Mr Rapley in November 1917. and was there

about four months. She knew Wildish and knew that he had instructions to call round to the office as often as he could to report business. Witness was constantly in attendance at the office but during March and April Wildish only called once or twice, but was« there fair]}- often in February. When Mr Rapley went on a holiday to Wellington he gave witness a letter to hand to Mr Wildish and she distinctly remembered giving him the letter, the contents of which she did not known Witness delivered the letter a few days afterwards. It was the only letter she was ever instructed to give to him. Cross-examined witness admitted that Mr Rapley w r as very seldom in the office, as a great deal of liis time was occupied in getting business outside.

Mr Willock expressed a desire to give evidence to which Air Burnard strongly objected and the Magistrate upheld the objection. The plaintiff. Wildish, recalled said that the other canvasser referred to canvassed the town, and plaintiff’s instructions were to do the country work. He got sick of going in to see Air Rapley because he was never in. Rapley could have got him by telephone at his liou'se. In giving judgment the Alagistrate said that the defendant should have used more care in respect to the notice to an allegedly unprofitable employee. The defendant had not shown that the notice he gave ever reached the plaintiff. The defendant had not satisfied him that the notice readied th 9 plaintiff and the only evidence was the sworn statement of "Wildish that lie got the notice on April 4. The defendant claimed that Wildish agreed to accept two months- in full settlement. The parties negotiated and Wildish wrote on the 23rd. June. However unprofitable Wildi'sh’s services had been he had a right to get proper notice The defendant had to the end of June, July and August to reply and did not do so. After the defendant had been in receipt of a letter asking for wages from a- man in need, he allowed two months to elapse and 1 never -replied. Defendant had failed to exorcise what a shrewd man of affairs would do. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for £26 and Court costs £1 10s and solicitors’ fee of £2 10s.