CLAIM FOR £50

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LV, Issue 17425, 25 November 1930, Page 11

CLAIM FOR £SO

JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF Tlie attention of Mr. P. 11. Harper, R.M.. was occupied in the Magistrate's t."onit this morningi and afternoon in healing a dispute between Thomas Munro and Ison, bakers, the plaintiffs, and Norman Bishop. The plaintiff’s claim for £SO 5s lOd. representing (he balance' due oil bread supplied and an advance made on a van, was admitted, and the defendant claimed as a set-off £lB 12s 4d. representing payments which lie alleged were not accounted for, one week’s wages unpaid, £4 13s. and one week’s wages in lieu of notice, •v "total of £27 18s 4d. Reviewing the evidence, the magistrate said that prior to September 16 the defendant had been condufling a bread round on his own account, obtaining (lie necessary bread from the plaintiff. He got behind with his payments on I lie van, and on September 16 an arrangement was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant whereby I lie latter was to be taken on as an assistant at £4 13s a week. At that date he owed plaintiff a. considerable amount, and the plaintiff seemed to have acted very generously in taking him on. That , arrangement continued until November 8, when according to the defendant he was summarily dismissed. He had heard both sides, however, and preferred to believe tho plaintiff’s .story that, the defendant left without giving notice, and the magistrate thought that prior to the date the defendant line! made arrangements to get, his bread elsewhere and carry on as before. That being so lie was not entitled to the week’s wages due. or to a week’s .wages in lieu of notice. It apneared that when the parlies entered into the. agreement a statement was prepared setting forth the defendant’s position, which showed certain payments made up to September

2. The defendant had produced receipts for £ll. 15s and £5, which he contended had not been included in the statement. The amount of £ll 15s would be allowed. but the receipt for £5 was rather suspicious to say the least of it : the date at the top was lorn off. and the date on the stamp had been altered from (he 7th to the 9th month, lie was not satisfied that the payment was made in September, and the amount would not he allowed. An amount: of £1 17s 4d taken off the statement must be allowed to the defendant. Judirment was entered for the plaintiff therefore for the full amount claimed, less £l3 12s 4d. Mr. E T Urosnahan npnearod for the plaintiff and Mr. A. A. Whitehead for the defendant. ,