EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXII, Issue 25, 12 January 1912, Page 5

EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE

EMPLOYEE SUED FOR SUM IN LIEU OF NOTICE. MUTUAL RESPONSIBILITIES. At tho Magistrate’s Court this morning, before Mr )V. G. K. Kenrick, S.M., the adjourned case of George Weston v. William Goldfinch was heard. Tho case was one in which plaintiff was suing defendant for 15s, using one week’s wages in lieu of notice, arising out of the action of defendant's son. Mr. Wright concluded the case for the defence, and tho Court was adjourned till 11 a.m., when his Warmup gave judgment. On the Court resuming h : s Worship said that he preferred to believe plaintiff’s evidence that the father was a consenting party to tho contract. He would, therefore, give judgment for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, and costs 12s. Goldfinch, tho plaintiff, thanked his "Worship for his decis on, and made an explanation of the reason why he had brought the case forward. His Worship said that lie thought plaintiff had been well advised in taking legal proceedings. “We have a great many young fellows,” he said, “that ,do not seem to realise that th. law applies to both sides—namely, r ■ ployert and employee. They think that the* employer must always carry out ■is duties—and he is very often sued ; f he does not—but for some reason fail to understand their own position.” Ho thought his case might have some ■(Toot on the young labourers in making them realise their responsibilities. “I do not.know why it is,” lie added, “but it is the good employer who is always treated like this. I think plaintiff is fully justified in doing as lie bar done. It is not Die amount sued fothat matters—it is the principle of tiie thing.” *