CLAIM FOR WAGES.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 12588, 19 October 1911, Page 4

CLAIM FOR WAGES.

Joseph Roberts, laborer, of Matawai (Mr ■ Burnard), sued Archibald McCor-: kind'ale (Mr Stock, instructed by Messrs 4 Reeis'Bros. aind Bright) at the Court today, for £50 6s 7d^or work. done. The' sum of £44 9s (including Costs) was paid into Coiirt. . Tlie items m dispute were 14s Id for work done on nine, Sundays, £l 15s lOd for working on ten Satuiddy afternoons, and one day's work' at 10?."'" ' V

Plaintiff gave evidence, that defendant, employed him to work horses at £2 10s' a > week.. It was arranged ' that if wit- 1 ness put m the, full time with the Go-, vernfnent (for which the, work W9S, being"; done) any overtime lie .worked'.defendantwould pay him for. JEis week .was to end at lioott on Saturdays. -.Witness did other wOrk" for plaintiff besides' carting for the '-'■ Public Wojfks Department, 1 whiqh- necessitated his Working on 'some Saturday afternoons and Sundays. He did hot keep a record of' the Sundays he* worked," . but there were at least nine, and -also ten Saturday afternoons. Witness was going to leave, but defendant asked hint to' stay on, and he worked two days at' 10s a day. — Cross-jexaimined, witness said defendant got him' to go for' two horses, and promised -to pay him.. When he went for his wages defendant "handed him a cheque for £43, but he threw it away, saying his clainr was ; about £50. Witness did not make a claim for overtime. , He was paid £2 10s a Sveek whether he worked; all the week or not. Tliere would be about .ten days he did ,not work on. He was asked by defendant to work on Saturday afternoons and Sundays. When thfey agreed about the wages nothing -was said about a half-holiday. Tlie Government stopped work at noon Oh Saturdays. He reckone<l he was. work ing for the Government.— Mr "'Stock : Well, why don't you sue' the Govern/, ment ?— Witness : I was working defendants.' horses. Witness said no fault was found with his work. Defendant did not ask witness to go for chaff on a Sunday.— By Mr Burnard: In order to feed the horses,, it^was necessary, foi* him to go for chaff on . a Sunday. — John Innes, labprer, gave evidence as to seeing plaintiff working on a Sunday, five Or' six times, and on three Saturday afternoons., He was employed by .-the Government.' ' " '■' f Defendant stated that the Governmentpaid him by the day; and no broken time was paid for. * The Government allowed witness 8s a day for plaintiff J for days worked. He agreed 'to give defendant £2 10s a week. Nothing J was said about overtime for work.dpnej gn Saturday afternoons or Sundays.] Witness didf not instruct plaintiff to go '

'for feed on Sundays. Referring .to his diary, witness showed that .it was ini-. possible for. plaintiff to; have worked on seven consecutive Sundays, which he said he did. Plaintiff was never so-, ba|j- ' ly off for horse feed that it was necessary for- him to cart chaff on Starida-ys.-t • By Mr Burnard : .Witness assisted ,pjaifi* ..tiff ..to load chaff on Sundays on one or two occasions. Plaintiff only had Js£ miles to go for the chaff. . 3 8.c :^rftrked four Sundays, and need not '"nave storked longer than • half a day.-*' .-W^ipess ■". got paid' for some of the work ■', piajnt>.i*ff • cjid 'on . Suihdays, and • he offered ,to p.*y plaintiff. '\, • -• ■ jLj His Worship thought plaintiff. was en-^M titled to something extriif for- the" Sun-'-w day work,, hut he could", not i be,; allowed the amount, claimed j or.. Judgment was given for- £1..65, m addition ,#> tii^e amount paid into Court." No costs', were allowed under the circumstances, . .