MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIII, Issue 115, 12 April 1933, Page 10

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

CLAIM FOR WAGES

QUESTION OK SUBSIDY

Proceedings were taken in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday utternoon by George Parker, painter, of Palmerston North (Mr Sinclair) against Mrs A. Hurley, of Palmerston North (Mr Ongley), claiming £o 3s 3d as the balance of wages allegedly due under a contract for. painting and carpentering work carried out by plaintiff. Evidence was given by plaintiff that he canvassed for work which he secured from defendant, and he gave a contract price of £l4. with Government subsidy under the No. 10 .scheme assessed at £2 10s. He denied, under cross-examination, that he knew tlrat he could not obtain the subsidy, though he took no steps to secure it. leaving that to Mrs Hurley, who, had she sought the subsidy, could have obtained it.

The Magistrate commented that plaintiff had no doubt obtained the work on the understanding that the cost to defendant would be £ll 10s, and he should have - made application for the subsidy. Defendant stated in evidence that plaintiff gave her a tender of £l4. less the Government’s subsidy of £2 10s for each of two jobs. Plaintiff’ said be would obtain the documents of application for the subsidy, these to be signed by defendant, but be did not bring them. Later, when the work was in progress, plaintiff informed her that he did not think she could secure the subside.

Evidence was given by Air \Y. H. Cadwallader f inspector for the Department of Labour} that to qualify for the subsidy tradesmen would have to be engaged by defendant herself, and receive a certificate of eligibility from Lhe department. Plaintiff had received subsidies until it was found that he

was obtaining subsidies to which the people for whom he worked were not entitled. Two other cases in which representations similar to those in the present one had allegedly been made had come under the notice of the department. Plaintiff could have applied ion the subsidy for any of bis employees, but they would have bad to comply with the conditions and obtain a certificate, which would not have been granted. The Magistrate said there did not seem to be any doubt that the contract had been obtained on the understanding that the subsidy would be payable and be deducted from the con- i tract price of £l4 for each of the two jobs. Plaintiff should have explained to lefendant that it was necessary for boi to make personal application for lie subsidy, the payment of which was i vital matter to her. Plaintiff was not •ntitied to succeed on his claim, and ,iidaiuent would he for defendant with . Is costs and £1 Is for solicitors’ fee. i