THE TEUCK ACT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2355, 13 April 1899, Page 21

THE TEUCK ACT.

A SHABBY DEFENCE. At the Magistrate's Court on Monday, before Mr C. C. Graham, S.M., a case came v-> in which the provisions of the Truck Act were ' put forward as a defence to a claim for the value of material supplied. The case was : that of Frederick Smith r. Thomas Young, claim £2 11s, for material supplied. Mr Baron appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Hanlon for defendant. ■< Plaintiff waa called, and gave . evidence to < the effect that ho sold cloth material to the . defendant, and that the price lie charged for j it was fair and reasonable. The defendant : was an employee of his when he sold him the material. He allowed discount to his employees when he Bold them stuff. Mr Hanlon submitted that the plaintiff could not recover, as the Truck Act intervened. Plaintiff admitted that at the time he sold the material defendant was his servant, and therefore he was debarred through the Truck Act from recovering. j His Worship said that there waa no evidence that the goods were given in payment of wages. Mr Hanlon said that such evidence was unnecessary, because section 7 of the Truck . Act provided " that no employer shall have or 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 employer whilst in his employment, as or on account of ■ his wages, or for or in respect of any goods sold, delivered, or supplied to such workman at any shop, store, house, or premises kept by or belonging to such employer, or in the profits of which such employer shall have any ' share or interest." Section 19 provided certain exceptions, but in this case these exceptions did not apply. .

Mr Baron said that if his client came solely within section 7 he must certainly fail. That was not the case, however, because the goods supplied were materials that could only be used in the course of the man's business or trade, and therefore came within the first sub-section of section 19.

. Mr Hanlon said that there was no evidence that the material was to-be used in the course of defendant's trade,. Supposing he bought tho material and sold it?

Mr Baron said that the defence could not be said to be a moral one.

• His Worship observed that "on the face of it the impression conveyed was that the material was' obtained for " making up." He thought that Mr Hanlon should be called upon to produce evidence.

Mr Hanlon said that it was tho duty of the plaintiff to prove that the claim came within section 19 of the act. The act was intended for the protection of a workman against the employer, and to prevent the employer from oxtorting profits from the workman simply because lie had to buy materials from him.

His Worship said that the invoice with the goods was prima facie evidence that the material was to be used by the workman in his trade, labour, or occupation. Mr Hanlon remarked that with regard to the morality of the case the act was intended for the protection of workmen, and it was a very proper and reasonable act to have on the Statute Book. It was true that it might be mean in some instances to take advantage of it whero a bona fide contract existed for supplying certain goods. There was nothing immoral, however, in this case, and the only reason that defendant had in contesting it in this wise was that the plaintiff had stopped a week's wages from him, in lieu of notice when he left his (plaintiff's) service.

Defendant then gave evidence. He admitted that the goods had been supplied, but said that they were not used by him in his trade. He bought tho material as a speculation to sell. Part of it he made uy for himself.

To Mr Baron : In the event of his not being able to sell the material he made it up for himself.

Mr Hanlon said that a somewhat' Bimilar case had been heard at Auckland, and was decided in the defendant's favour. A lot had been written about tho decision, but it iiad not been appealed against. His Worship said there was only one -sense in which the act could be interpreted: ' If defendant had been employed making goods at so much a piece, and had to find certain materials necossary for the work, and went to his employer to get them, the employer would be entitled to sue for them. But where, as scorned, to be tho case here, he had received the goods to bo used by himself fn any way he thought right and proper, he did not think plaintiff had the right to recover. He thought that the exceptions clearly did not apply, and he must give judgment for the defendant.

Mr Bbron taid thai, considering the defence which had been raised, he would ask his Worship to use the discretion given to him by law and not allow costs. The caae was not defended on its merits.

Mr Hanlon Faid it was defended on its merits. He had given notice to Mr Baron that he intended tc rely on this act. s The defendant had a perfect right to rely on this act. Mr Baron surely know of its provisions, as it had been on the Statute Book since 1891.

Mr Baron: But the morality of the defence !

Mr Hanlon : You cannot raise that plea, when the Legislature has seen fit to give us the right of relying upon thi3 defence. His Worship : It is a very shabby defence, all tho same.

Mr Hanlon remarked that Mr Smith had treated his client badly. He (the defendant) had offered him 16s.

Mr Graham : I think it is s shabby defence in a case of this kind, I shall allow no costs.

The clerk was understood to cay that there were no costs of court.

Wairoa, Hawke's Bay, is agitated just now over a discovery of gold, which is said to havo

taken place near Waikaromoana.