MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVI, 25 June 1927, Page 9

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

SITTINGS AT PATEA. The monthly sitting of the Patea Magistrate ’s Court was held yesterday, Mr J. S. Barton, S.M., presiding. Judgment was given by. default in the following undefended civil case:— S. J Carter v. Wm. Young, £4 .19s 4d. On a judgment summons, Norman Tinncv was ordered to pay to the Wellington Freezing Works and Related Trade Employers ’ Union £4l Ss within 21 days, in default 42 days’ imprisonment.

CLAIM FOR WAGES FAILS. Further evidence was heard in the case in which Charles William Fowler claimed from A. N. Forbes the sum of £4 2s in respect of wages for work alleged to have been done during the last harvesting season. After defendant had given his evidence, the Ain gist rate pointed out that it was clear a misunderstanding had occurred and nonsuited the plaintiff. Mr R. C. Futheiford appeared for the plaintiff and Mi T. E. Roberts for defendant. The plaintiff stated that the son ol the defendant employed him for haymaking, weeding and coal shovelling, kltocether he worked 41 hours. Othei men °had been employed • at the same time and witness understood 'that they had been paid. Witness was in the habit of doing work for Ins brother, who always paid him a certain hourly wage. When witness called on defendant regarding payment for the labour, the latter told him he would have to ax . the matter up with witness’ brother and [ then defendant. ' x Cross-examined, plaintiff stated, that no arrangement had been made with the defendant for the payment. Witness did not know of any ararngement between his brother and defendant. In evidence, defendant stated that lie first saw plaintiff’s brother regarding the haymaking on the last sale day before Christmas at Ivakaramea, when witness asked him if lie would lend his implements. Plaintiff’s brother stated that ho did not want anything for the loan of the implements, and that lie and his brother would assist at the harvesting if witness and his son would assist, them iu return. There was no suggestion of engagement for wages. The plaintiff had worked for about sixteen hours on the harvesting. He had worked not more than two hours at hoeing, and this was merely to fill in time until the hay dried sufficiently for the stacking to'he continued. When plaintiff’s brother was prepared to proceed with his harvesting, defendant and liis son assisted with the work and used their implements. It was considered this quite equalled what the Fowler brothers, had done on the farm of witness. Some time after the work was done plaintiff called for his wages and witness informed him that lie had made the arrangements with bis ’brother and could not recognise his claim. The Magistrate declined to hear further evidence in defence and said it was quite clear that a misunderstanding had occurred and that there had been no contract. Plaintiff would be non-suited, costs amounting to £1 Is being allowed to defendant.