A MILKER'S WAGES.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXII, Issue 5, 15 December 1911, Page 5

A MILKER'S WAGES.

BOY LEAVES HIS EMPLOYER WITHOUT NOTICE.

AMICABLE AGREEMENT SOUGHT.

At the Magistrate’s Court this morning, before Mr. W. G. Keirtek, S.M., argument was heard in the case of Joseph Weston (farmer! v. \\ illiam Golciiionch (farmer), a claim for Jus in lieu of a week’s notice. Mr. F. W. Wake appeared for the defendant.

Plaintiff, who conducted his own case, said that he had engaged defendant’s son to assist him in milking, at a wage of 15s per week. He understood that the boy had asked permission of the father to accept the situation . The boy told him he was eighteen years old . In the second week of his service, he asked for his •wages, and was paid for the fortnight's work. Taking advantage of plaintiff’s absence in New Plymouth, the boy left without giving him notice, and having still two days more to work, to complete the time for ’which he had been paid. He then went and saw the defendant, and asked him why his son Arthur had left. He told him that the son had

said he wanted to reduce his wages. Ho asked the son if that was tnie, but tlie boy only grinned. lu reply to Mr. Wake, ho said the bey was not worth the money he paid him . Pie was not a good milker. His Worship: Why did you not sue the son ? You say he is eighteen. Plaintiff: I understood that you cannot sue a minor in New Zealand.

His Worship remarked that tliis was the second case within a short time in which a father had been sued for the actions of his son. Plaintiff should have included the son fin the acton, or, as the lad was over eighteen, should have proceeded against the son, as the latter was lia--ble under the Magistrate’s Court Act. Mr. Wake applied for a non-suit on tlie grounds that the tath.i was no+ a party to the contrm.t and (lid mot know of his son’s actions ,n the matter. The hoy was seventeen years of age. _ The appli .itfon was held ever. William Goldfinch, sworn, said lus son would be IS on the jOtJi ff mxt April. He never Knew wlmro his son had gone to. His Worship drew’ from witness a. statement to the effect that this was the first time the hoy had been away from home, and that though the hoy had been away for over a week at Weston’s, ho had not taken the trouble to acquaint himself with the fact. When bis son came hack he told him that Weston wanted to reduce his wages.

Arthur Goldfinch gave evidence that plaintiff told him about a week after he was there that he wanted to lower the wages, as the hoy he had previously had been paid loss. This was the first time he had been working away from home. He did not like the place. Ho had to sleep in a lumber room. He did not like to tell the plaintiff to his face that he did not like the place, and was leaving. He did not ask for wages in advance, but plaintiff gave him a cheque for 255, which, in addition to 5s he had already received, made up the two weeks’ wages. He left two days before the fortnight was up. ,His Worship: Do yoxi not see tjmt you were defrauding the plaintiff? It is nothing else but fraud. Plaintiff then examined the witness. Questioned as to whether Tie did not tell him (Weston) that he had been nut working with another farmer before, he said lie did not. Ho had never been out at work before. Plaintiff: Did I say I wanted to reduce your wages ? Witness: Yes. Plaintiff:'That’s untrue! The S.M.: You must not contradict the witness. Plaintiff then asked him if he had anything to complain of in Tns treatment towards him, and witness repeated the statement about the room. - The S.M.: What was in the room? Witness replied that' there was a sot of harness there, and a sack of potatoes. The S.M.; Was the bed good? Witness: Yes. Summing up, the S.M. commented very severely on the action of the boy. He'had treated the plaintiff fairly, and had defrauded him. If he had done honest work he would have slept well on the sack of potatoes. He would not decide on the non-suit, hut would adjourn the case till January 12th, before which time he hoped the case would he settled out of Court, and the plaintiff given fair treatment in the matter.