Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

YOUTH IN PARTNERSHIP

AGREEMENT NOT BONA FIDE. DUNEDIN PAINTERS PINED TOR BREACH OP AWARD. PEESS ASSOCIATION, DUNEDIN, November 22. Mr H. Y. Widdowson, S.M., gave his de« cislon to-day in the case iu which a firm of painters. Gear and Sivcrtson, were proceeded against by the Inspector of Awards, the latter "claiming .£lO as penalty for a breach of the Dunedin! painters' award. It was alleged that defendants employed two apprentices (Wilson and Hunter) in excess of tho proportion allowed by the award, or, in the alternative, they employed Hunter as a painter at less than Is 3d per hour without first obtaining a permit. A partnership -agreement dated August 12fch was produced by defendants, who claimed that,a bona fide partnership, had been entered into between themselves and Hunter, and that no evasion of award or fraud of any kind was intended. Hunter was then seventeen years and. eight months old. By the agreement defendants purported to admit Hunter into partnership for two years,* the terms, being that Hunter was to receive oneeighth share of the profits on work done by the firm during that time, such* share being at least £A per month for the first year and not less than *£s per month for the second year. All other profits were to be’■ divided equally between the two defendant.] aJU stock to belong to the latter, and the partnership to be carried on Tinder defendants' names. Tho only interest Hunter had under the agreement was a one-eighth share of tho profits of tho business, payable as stated. Defendants in the‘first place wished to take Hunter as an apprentice. But not being able to do so, sought to employ him .as an. under-rate worker, in which again they were, unsuccessful. The partnership agreement was then entered into. His Worship held that the partnership was not bona fide, and ho fined defendants i-3 with costs. He added that but for the fact that defendants were working painters the penalty would havf been very much heavier.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZTIM19101123.2.101

Bibliographic details

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 7292, 23 November 1910, Page 8

Word Count
335

YOUTH IN PARTNERSHIP New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 7292, 23 November 1910, Page 8

YOUTH IN PARTNERSHIP New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 7292, 23 November 1910, Page 8

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert