A WARNING TO EMPLOYERS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1263, 14 May 1896, Page 18

A WARNING TO EMPLOYERS.

A caso of considerable interest to employers was heard at tho Magistrate's Court on Thursday afternoon before Mr Greenfield, S.M. Mr Henry Fielder, of Manners street, had in his employ one Patrick Barry, whom he supplied with goods worth a considerable amount of money. Tho arrangement came to was that tho goods should bo paid for by weekly instalments of Ss per week, to bo deducted from his wages. Barry has since left Mr Fielder's employ. Mr Fielder then set tho machinery of the law in motion to recover .£lO lis lid duo to him. Harry, evidently knowing more about the intricacies of the law than bis muster, refused to pay, and the case came on for hearing yesterday. Mr Jellicoo appeared for the defendant, and contended that under section 7of the Truck Act plaintiff could not recover. The Magistrate upheld the urn tent ion, and judgment was for defendant, with coits, 21s. Mr Fielder asked if he could not recover in any other manner, and was informed to the contrary. Ho then said that ho thought it was very hard that employers should not have any redrers. Mr Jellicoo facetiously suggested that the only way to remedy it was to stand for Parliament and haw the Act altered. We append section 7 of the Trtu-k Act for the informal ion of those who do not know of its existence, and for those who do and who have not thought it worth their while to read it. Section 7—(1) No employer shall haveor be entitled to maintain any action in any Court against any workman for or in respect of any goods sold, delivered or supplied to any such workman by any such omplojer whilst in his employment as or on account of bis wng::- or for or in respect of any goods sold, delivered or supplied to such workman at any shop, storehouse or premises kept by or belonging to such employer or ill the profits of which such em] lover shall have any share or interest.

(2) Nor shall the employer of a workman or any agent of * such employer or any person supplying goods lo the workman under any order or direction of such employer, or agent, ho entitled to maintain any action in any court for or in respect of any goods supplied by such employer, or agent, or under such or direction

I as the case may be : provided that nothing in this section shall apply to any exceptions expressly provided for by this Act. The result of this action was a surprise to everybody and an eye-opener to merchants. It is, indeed, very strange law that a merchant is debarred from recovering for goods sold simply because the party to whom they wore sold happened to be in his employ at the time of the transaction. Mr Fielder related tho facts in tho caso on Friday to a New Zealand Mail reporter. It appears the defendant in tho case wrote from Gisborno applying for a situation. Mr Fielder, being shorthanded at the time, immediately wired back and engaged him at the rate of 8s per day, with an increase to 9s if he suited. After working for a week or t wo, he told Mr Fielder that his wifo was coming from Gisborne to Wellington, and asked to be supplied with household goods on the time payment system. Mr Fielder, always willing to assist his employees, acquiesced, and goods to the value of ,£!l> odd wore supplied. The man expressed bis willingness to pay for them at the rate of £1 per week, but Mr Fielder thought that that sum was too large for a man to pay who was receiving £2 8s per week, and intimated that be would take only tho odd Ms. Tho man paid .£1 as the first instalment, and for a few weeks paid the Ss. On one Saturday Mr Fielder took the man his wages, expecting to receive the usual instalment, but the man refused to pay, saying that ho know a trick worth two of that. Tho man remained away from bis work for some days, but eventually returned, but still persisted in refusing to make any further payments. Mr Fielder then asked for a bailment over the, goods, but tho man refused to allow this, hence the action, (vhich resulted as stated. Mr Fielder became aware of tho fact that tho man was not married as he had stated, but had got the furniture for his sister. Five other ex-employees of Mr Fielder's establishment were also sued on the same ground, but Mr Fielder, finding it useless to proceed with tho cases, dropped them.