SUPREME COURT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLI, Issue 8542, 24 March 1908, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

PALMERSTON —MONDAY.

(Before Mr -Justice jBAILLIE v. IMPERIAL DRY. MILK FACTORY.

Appended is the additional Evidence in the case in which John RaSfcie claimed £507 frow tho Imperial J3ry Milk Co., Lid., for work done, an<S compensation for a patent and for loss of tools. The case for the defence was as follows : — ... Frederick Joseph Natha*. stated, in Ins evidence, that; he had' ©ever made a promise to pay Baillie £6 for tools. Baillie -left his employ in December, 1907, and up to that time witness had never reccvod any claiwi for any amoiiint. Baillie left because the manager of the factory had oome in to Palmerston and told witness that he would not stay on if Baillie remained there. Baillie liafi told him that if Olson stayed ho would leave- on Saturday night. Witness replied that Olson was staying. Baillio then asked what ho was going to do for an engineer, to which witness replied that ho had engaged one to come on Monday. .Baillie said: "He is no good; he can't make dried milk." Witness replied: " That need not trouble you; that's my funeral." Baillie then asked if he was free to join any other 'firm that manufactured dried milk, to which witness replied that he was free to do as he liked. Witness stated that if a man took a position in a milk or butter factory there wero no stated hours. About February Baillio's wages were raised, and again towards the end of the year to £16 per month. It was not customary to pay their engineers overtime. Sometimes it was necessary to make dried milk on Sunday, just as it was nccessary to make butter or chccso. -No agreement had been made to pay Baillie overtime. Baillie might have asked for tho £50 which ho was paid, but had asked for nothing else. Baillie had no authority to remove any books from the factory. To Mr Moore: Baillie had onco asked about his tools, which were burnt, to which witness replied that the company could not acccpt any responsibility in the matter. Mr Moore: Have you ever made any promises and forgotten them ? It is stated that you have made promises to your suppliers and have not been able to carry them out, and also that you have had to tell them your promise was zio good. Witness: I made arrangements with my suppliers, which I had to submit to iny company in Wellington. Sometimes '■ I made arrangements which were subject to confirmation by the members of the company. Mr Moore: There was the matter of the promise to a man named Neilson in Stoney Creek. Witness: I do not know what trouble you are referring to. Mr Moore: The promise was that you would make him manager of your factory at Whakaronga. Witness: That was providing he was satisfactory, which he was not.

Mr Moore: There was a proviso in that case also. Witness: Certainly. Mr Moore: There was some trouble about tho tests, too. Did you ever say to him, "You must get a point?" Witness: There was absolutely no trouble in that way. No man wo have had at Bunnythorpe could work with Baillie. Mr Moore: Was there not some trouble with a man named Duncan, who complained that your promise had not been kept ? Witn ess: There was no trouble; Duncan said the country did not suit him after ho had been there about three weeks, and left. A testimonial was produoed by Mr Moore, which Mr Myers stated was not signed, and also that it had been snatched from the typist by Baillie before it was finished. "It's a lie!" interjected Baillie. His Honour: I have already told you I cannot allow these interjections. David Nathan, merchant, Wellington, stated in his evidence that he looked upon Merritt as responsible for the renovation of tho machinery, and had never made any promise to compensate Baillie. To Mr Moore: He remembered the day on which he, Mr Fred Nathan, and Mr Kennedy Macdonald went out to Bunnythorpe. Ho did not take Baillie asido and hold a conversation with him, neither did ho remember making any arrangement with him. All his arrangements had been made in writing, and liad been carried out. To Plis Honor: He remembered the Featherston factory closing down. Mr Moore: It is alleged that you made a promise in connection with the Fcathcrston factory and did not carry it out? His Honor held that this was an irrelevant question This concluded the evidence His Honor then put .the following issues to the jury:— (1) Was the plaintiff's a weekly wage for 48 hours' work during the timo he was engaged in renovating the machinery after the fire?— Yes. (2) Did defendants, thrcugh their agents, promise him reasonable compensation for all work beyond those hours? — Yes. (3) How many hours overtime did he •work while engaged in renovating the machinery ?—IOO hours. (4) What is a reasonable sum per hour for such overtime?— Two shillings. {,5) Was the plaintiff's weekly wage a wage for 48 hours per week during the time the factory was running from October Bth, 190&, or was it a wage to cover all work ?—A weekly wage to cover all work. ' • The jury returned a verdict in favour of plaintiff for £10, and his Honor gave judgment accordingly.