CLAIM FOR WAGES SUCCEEDS

Manawatu Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 3309, 1 April 1926, Page 12

CLAIM FOR WAGES SUCCEEDS

COUNTER-CLAIM DISMISSED. Further evidence was heard in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday before Mr J. D. Stout, S.M., in the case in which W. Hemmings, labourer, of Palmerston North (Mr. Ongley) claimed to recover from W. H. Hickson, of Utuwai, Pohangina (Mr Cooper), the sum of £36 for wages due and money lent as follows: — Erecting fence, £ls; ploughing, harrowing, etc., £6 cash lent,. £10; wages £5. Defendant counter-claimed for £l5O damages alleged to have been caused through plaintiff under a share-milking agreement, neglecting to milk defendant’s cows at various times with the result that the herd was dried off some two months before the end of the milking season.

Several witnesses were called on each side.

His Worship, in giving judgment for plaintiff for £3O on the claim, stated that under the circumstances defendant ought to pay for the erection of new fences. As far as ploughing, harrowing, sowing and repairing of fences was concerned, that was probably the duty of a sharemilker. As regards the coun-ter-claim it looked very much as if it was an afterthought. That claim was not made until after the summons was issued against Hickson. Some time prior to this, when Hemmings was leaving the place, Hickson gave him an undated cheque, and there was then no question about neglect of the cows or damage to the herd. On looking over the returns there was to be found very little difference between what Hickson got off the place compared with' Hemmings. “The case is a question of credibility,” stated His Worship, “and it looks like a put-up job in an endeavour to avoid payment of an amount which Hickson knows he ought to pay.” He preferred to believe Hamming's story and that the coSrs were dried off with Hickson’s knowledge. The counter-claim would be dismissed.

Costs amounting to £6 13s were allowed on the claim, and costs amounting to £l6 on the counterclaim.