ELTHAM COURT

Hawera Star, Volume L, 15 May 1930, Page 8

ELTHAM COURT

fortnightly sitting

At the Magistrate’s Court, Ellham, on Tuesday Mr. R. \V • Tate, S.M., delivered judgment, with costs, in the following undefended civil cases: Lltliam Borough Council v. P. Eva, £l6 11s oil, costs £3 8s; G. E. Barker v. H. C. Andre sen, £3 9s Id (9s); Taranaki Electric Power Board v. 11. A. Black stock, *£9 ‘ 13s Id (£1 lUs 6d). In a defended civil action for recovery of the sum of £2 2s 7d judgment for plaintiffs (S. and l'\ Knight), for whom Mr. A. Chrystal appeared, was entered against Lucy A. McCarthy with costs £1 16s. .. . Evidence was given by Stuart C. Knight, a partner in the linn of S. and F. Knight, that goods to the value of £6 2s 7cl had been supplied to Airs. McCarthy and off the account £4 had been paid in instalments. Monthly accounts had been rendered and witness had received no complaints that money paid was not . credited as- alleged by the defendant. CLAIM FOR WAGES. John ‘William Burke, farmer, of, Eltham. for whom Mr. A. A. Stewart appeared claimed from J. C. Hutton (A.Z.), liiii., tne sum of £29 for one month’s wages in lieu of notice of dismissal.

The statement of claim set out that plaintiff, being the hired servant or the defendant company at £348 per annum (payable monthly), the .defendant wrongfully dismissed plaintiff on April 28, 1928, being the current year of his service, and that the plaintiff was entitled to at least one mouth’s notice, or one month’s wages in lieu thereof, namely, £29, alid that the plaintiff suffered Toss by .being-wimble to obtain work for about three months. . : , •■■■■ The evidence of -Samuel diaries -Barron (formerly general manager of the New Zealand Bacon and Meat Packing Company, Ltd., at Waihi), and that of Colin Monro, acting general manager for the defendant company, was taken on commission at Wellington. In outlining the case, Mr. Stewart said that plaintiff had acted as head buyer in the Taranaki district from 1999 or thereabouts until October, 1926, when his employers disposed of their business to J. C. Hutton (N.Z.), Ltd. Plaintiff received a letter, dated April 26, 1925, giving him one week’s notice of the termination of his appointment. and on April 30 he received a telegram suggesting that he should continue to buy pigs for the company for the balance of the season on a commission basis of 2s 6d per pig. This he agreed to do. On May 12 he received a further telegram terminating the arrangement. The off-season in the pig-buying business was generally regarded as July, August and September. Plaintiff’s chance of finding employment in the off-season was small.

Air. A. Iv. North (Hawera), who appeared for the defendant company, said that the obligations of the company dated only»iroin 1926. Air. Barren,* late general manager for the company, had stated in evidence that lie had • received instructions- to ’dismiss plaintiff without notice, yet he gave him a week, probably recognising that such was a right and proper term of notice. The court must take notice of the fact that 12 months, had elapsed before plaintiff took action—hr the matter. It was maintained that if the letter dated April 26 constituted a breach of contract, the subsequent acceptance of the offer to purchase pigs on commission had created a new tontract, and any rights the plaintiff had under the first contract were at an' end. He contended that -the arrangement to buy on commission operated to discharge any liability on the company. The plaintiff had received one week’s wages in the month claimed for, and the amount earned on commission (£l7 15s in 12 days) was also entitled to be set off against the claim.

Mr Stewart maintained that plaintiff was entitled to a month’s notice, irrespective of what ha subsequently earned on commission. The telegram suggesting a new arrangement, said Mr. Stewart, was a first-class trap. The cold facts were that Burke had been with- the firm for nearly 20 years, had been head buyer for Taranaki, and had been put off at a week’s notice. Legally and morally, he claimed, his client was entitled to a month’s notice.

Air. Tate said that plaintiff was entitled to one month’s salary (£29) in lieu of notice, but he had already received a week’s salary and had earned £l7 15s on commission. He would therefore enter judgment for plaintiff for the balance (£4 14s 8d) with costs £8 19s.