Binding Nature

NZ Truth, Issue 1305, 18 December 1930, Page 5

Binding Nature

tract. The apprenticeship contract is not unlike the marriage contract m its binding nature. Mr. Northcroft said the position was that the Company had two businesses, one m Christchurch and one m Auckland. It was impossible to absorb the boys at Christchurch after the Auckland business closed down. The alternative to the cancellation of their contracts was that the boys, no less than their employers, would continue to be bound by the apprenticeship clauses, and this . would mean that they would be debarred from going out and getting other occupations, and they would be compelled to remain m idleness. Counsel argued that a fair solution would be an order for the apprenticeship to , terminate m, say, three months' time. The boys had already been doing nothing for nearly three months. Edward Chalmers Huie said he was managing director of the applicant company. When tlie "Sun" was sold they had interviewed 40 employers to try and place the boys, but AVithout success. The boys had been told to attend dally. Before long, they produced a pack of cards and started playing. One was asked to do a message, and he went down to the Labor Department to see if he should do so. The boys had been m a state of idleness for some weeks, and the position Avas lmving a demoralising effect on them. , His Honor: Are they trying to get other work? Witness: All I know is that they oome up to the office for their wages every Friday. Mr. Sullivan (m cross-exami-nation): I think the "Sun" was sold by a voluntary action by yourself?— Yes. What did you get for it?— The building was sold at a loss of £10,000. Was not the business sold for £59,---600?— No. Mr. Northcroft: With your Honor's permission, I would like to advise the witness that he has no need to anSAver that question. His Honor (to Mr. SulliA'an): I doh't think it has anything to do with the present case, you knoAV. Mr. Sullivan : The applicants claim bad business as justification for their action, sir, and I am entitled to question the Avitness to show the position of the business. Mr. Sullivan AA'ent on to submit that the principle that an employer could