BREACH OF AWARD.

Manawatu Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 1980, 23 November 1921, Page 3

BREACH OF AWARD.

RESTAURANT-KEEPER FINED. Before Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, the Inspector of Awards (W. A. Baldwin) proceeded against F. \V. Klein (Mr Meatyard), restaurant proprietor of Palmerston North, for failing to pay the rate of wages allowed for under the restaurant employees’ award and for failing to exhibit a copy of the awai'd on his premises. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Evidence was given by Mrs M. A. Brown that she had been engaged by defendant as cook in January, 1921, and had remained in his employ for nine, weeks. During that time her wages had been 30/ per week. _ Witness had returned to defendant’s employ on June 2 and had remained there till August, at a wage of 25/ per week. On this occasion defendant had employed her as kitchen-hand and waitress. She was the only employee and did all that was necessary to keep the place in order. Defendant had told her lie could not afford to pay witness more. No copy of the award was exhibited on the premises. She had been paid 15/ extra in consideration for working till about midnight during Show Week. Witness worked half a day on Sundays and had Mondays off. Defendant did the cooking for his family and attended to the place at night. Defendant, in evidence, said Mrs Brown was. engaged as waitress and assistant. When he had engaged her on the second occasion it was at her request. He had dismissed her on the last occasion because she swore at his little boy. He had re-engaged her because she was ill and in need of work. Pier duties had been very light. His Worship said Mrs Brown was certainly a housemaid-waitress if nothing else. Defendant said Mrs Brown had never cooked for customers, but only for her own breakfast. To Mr Baldwin: He knew he was a party to the award. Mrs Brown had worked from 9 o’clock in the morning till 7 o'clock at night. Mrs Brown had “begged back” at the rate of 25/ a week, because she had been ill and wanted work. His Worship said there had certainly been a breach of the award. He fixed Mrs Brown’s status as house-maid-waitress. It was pointed out that this status entitled Mrs Brown to 2/6 a week more than she had been paid, plus 6/6 bonus, a total of 84/ per week, whereas she had been paid only 25/. Mr Meatyard admitted a technical breach of the award, but submitted that Mrs Brown was an under-rate worker. Under the terms of the award the worker had to apply for arrears of wages within three months. This had not been done in this case. His Worship said the only question for decision was what the fine would be. Mrs Brown had made no claim for arrears, and for that reason he could not decide what she was entitled to. “Let this.be a warning to you,” said his Worship, in fining defendant £5 on the first charge and £1 on the second, with costs £2. “If you come up for this again you will probably be fined the full amountAN AUOTIONEER’S ACCOUNT. Harry Palmer and Co. (Mr F. J. Oakley) proceeded against Mrs E. Hill, of Bunnythorpe (Mr Meatyard), for the sum of £ll 15/G, stated to be owing by defendant in respect of goods purchased at auction from the plaintiff firm. Evidence was given by W. B. O’Callaghan, manager for the plaintiff firm, that the account in question was of some years’ standing, and that items listed had not previously been disputed. The goods had been purchased by defendant’s husband and members of the family at different times. Mr Meatyard explained that defendant had no separate estate apart from her husband, and his Worship suggested that both parties should be joined as defendants. Mr Oakley, accordingly, made application to do so and the case was adjourned. CLAIM FOR VALUE OF INJURED HORSE. John Herbert Nicholson (Mr A. M. Ongley) procceed against John Robert Brown McFarlane (Mr H. R. Cooper) for the sum of £35, stated to be the value of a horse which plaintiff claimed had been injured as the result of a collision with defendant’s motor-car and £6 6/ for veterinary surgeon’s attendance on the horse. The case for plaintiff, as outlined by .Air Ongley, was that plaintiff was riding a horse across the Ohau Bridge, which was about 100 yards long and 13 feet wide, when the accident to the horse occurred. When approaching the Levin end of the bridge plaintiff saw a car, driven by defendant, approaching'. Instead of slowing down, defendant had come on to the bridge at a good speed. When the car was about 10 yards from the horse the animal shied. Defendant put on his brakes, but the car skidded for about 30 paces before pulling up, and in its course ran into the horse, knocking it down and inflicting injuries to the muscles of its back and thigh. The treatment given to the injuries of the horse had so far proved ineffective, with the result that the animal was now of no value. Evidence to this effect was given by a number of witnesses, one of whom, a veterinary surgeon, put the value of the horse down at £4O. He could not swear that the injuries to the horse would be permanent, but at the present time the horse was unfit for work of any sort, as some of its muscles were wasting and it was still lame. The defence, as stated by Mr Cooper, was that the collision was just as much the fault of plaintiff as that of defendant, if not entirely plaintiff’s fault. Evidence would be called to show that defendant was not going at an excessive speed. At the time of the (iccident the car ■fras right over on the left-hand side of the bridge. The cai was sft Gin to G feet wide, leaving a clear 7 feet of width for the horse to pass. Plaintiff could have kept his horse away from the car had he not been going at an excessive speed at the time himself. Evidence to this effect was given by a number of witnesses for the defence. His Worship held that there was certainly neglect on the part of the driver of the car. The horse piobably shied when he" saw the car coming. He did not think it was a case of the horse running into the car, as, had he done so, his injuries would not have been so severe. Mr McFarlane had undoubtedly been negligent in the way he approached the bridge. The evidence had shown that it was the practice on that particular bridge for cars to wait until a horse got across the bridge, or to pull up on the bridge,