Workmen’s Wages.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 226, 24 November 1888, Page 2

Workmen’s Wages.

A considerable amount of interest was taken in tbe B.M. Court proceedings of Thursday last, more especially in the case in whieh W. Pitcher sued B. J. Reynolds for £l6 12a for wages incurred in falling bush on tha defendant's property. During the hearingof the case the Court was well fi led by the men who had been working on the oontraot, and from the judgment given it is very probable that several more oases will be brought before Mr Booth. Mr Brassey appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Chrisp for the defendant. In opening tbe case, in a long address Mr Brassey said that the claim as stated above was for wages on a contrast whidi had been let by the defendant to a man named Sargeant, but it now appeared that Reynolds was only the nominal defendant, Messrs Graham, Pitt and Bennett being really the principals who were defending this action. He pat in notices which had been served under the Workmen's Wages Act, 1884. E. Sargeant deposed that he had entered into a contract with Reynolds to fsll certain bush on the defendant’s property at Manga* heia. Mr Chrisp said he would deny that a oon* tract had been tat to Sargeant. Mr Brassey said he would show that the labour had been performed by Sargeant. Witness (continued): In pursuance with the specifications (produced) he had entered into a contract with Reynolds, and since he had commenced the work be had never received any money from the defendant. Ho considered that Reynolds was in his debt to about £lOO. The plaintiff in this action had sued him for the amount of his wages, and he had to confess judgment, in fact all the workmen remained unpaid. He had several times told Reynolds thst the workmen wanted their money, but he had never given any authority to Reynolds to pay the money to anyone excepting by an assignment to Graham, Pitt and Bennett. By Mr Chrisp: He and Duckett had taken the contract, but Duckett had a little disagreement with him and left before the work was completed, He had entered into the agreement (produced) with Graham, Pitt and Bennett.

W. Pitchard deposed: Had worked for Sargeant on the contract, and had not received any money for his labor. Thia having closed the case for the plaintiff, Mr Chrisp strongly urged that the Bench should grant a nonsuit. Mr Booth, however, did not res his way at thia stage of the proceedings, and the evidence for the defence was then called. B. J. Reynolds deposed that he had lot a contract for bflsh falling to Duckett and Sargeant. Had received notice (produced) frem Mr Brassey on the 7th inst, By Mr Brassey : Was aware that ths work* men were not being paid. After ho had received the notice from Mr Brassey, and on the morning following, Mr Bennett eame to the house and asked for the balanoo ot the oontraot money which was due. Mr Bennett also brought some books—law books, which they went through carefully, with retarenoi to the contract. Gave Mr Bennett a cheque for £154 17s 8d before he left the house, leaving a balance of £1 He fld still due. Ho • had deducted £4B 4a 6d for meat supplied by him to Sargeant. Prior to paying thia money ho had had no conversation with Sargeant on the subject. No account had over been rendered, and ho did not know whether the - amount was correct or not. It was arranged that should he be summoned Mr Bennett was to pay all the expenses. Mr Bennett had proffered a guarantee to that effect. Ha oon. sidered that he hsd a very bad contractor, who who robbed the workmen and also Mr Bennett, and in paying the money to Mr Bennett he considered he was equalising the robbery. Had received notice from Graham. Pitt and Bennett saying that Sargeant had assigned the contract, the total amount being £296. He had never asked Sargeant what money ho was to give Graham, Pitt and Bennet—the took Mr Bennett's word. He had paid that firm £5O for goods for which be deducted from the contract money. He had received no release from Sargeant. O. D. Bennett deposed to entering into an agreement with Duckett and Sargeant. He had received £154 f.om Reynolds on the Sth inst, but he did not then know about ths notice of attachment. He went to Reynolds' house so that he should protect himself. He had already paid away about £122 in cash on orders of Sergeant’s and Duckett. Ha considered he was a great loser by the transr action. By Mr Brassey: Had given Sargeant a statement of accounts a short while ago. Reynolds said he had deducted £4B tor meat. Hs had told Reynolds that should the workmen summon him (Reynolds) hs would pay all expenses. After both sides bad made learned addresses Mr Booth said he would have to give judgment for the plaintiff under section 14 0! tbe Workmen's Wages Act, with costs £2 15s. Mr Chrisp gave notice of appeal,