NEIGHBOURLY SERVICES

Stratford Evening Post, Issue 84, 4 July 1928, Page 5

NEIGHBOURLY SERVICES

TENT-DWELLER’S CLAIM.

WOOD-SPLITTER AND DAIRY FARMER IN COURT.

At the Stratford, Court to-day, before Mr It. W. Tate, S.M., Mrs Pearl Morgan (Mr Moss) sued Henry Ashcroft (Mr Thomson) for the sum of £3, wages as servant for two weeks.

In evidence, the plaintiff, wife of A. C. Morgan, said she, her husband and their two children lived on Ashr croft’s farm. Her husband was working on the farm, independent of Ashcroft. In March witness saw Mrs Ashcroft in reference to her going to the Hospital. Mrs Ashcroft had seven children. Witness undertook to look after the house and The children, and in addition she helped with the milking. No rate of remuneration was agreed upon, but witness said she could not do the work for nothing. Mrs Ashcroft was away for a fortnight. When she returned witness asked her about payment and she was referred to Mr Ashcroft. Mr Ashcroft said he would not make any payment, as witness owed him for milk. Ashcroft had no license to sell milk- Witness had got milk from him from December to March, Witness got the milk from Mrs Ashcroft, who said it was not necessary to pay for it. Each day witness got a trear cle tin of milk—about a quart. During the fortnight witness spent abou + an hour daily in the cowshed. Thirty shillings a week was fair payment for what witness had done for the Ashcrofts. Ashcroft Hid not offered to make any payment.

SUPPLY OF MILK 5 , • i, :,.; 1 To. Mr Thomson; Witness and her husband went on to Ashcroft’s land in July, 1927. They wej-e given the right to live in a tent on the farm. Her husband was cutting firewoodThey used wha.t firewood they required. This was chiefly rubbish. ’ The claim was made by Ashcroft for the firewood used. Witness asked for milk, a§ on© of her children was ailing, and she got milk from about December 20th to March 4th. She would not get two quarts ai day—sometimes the billy was only half full. All through witness had been on friendly terms with the Ashcrofts. Mr Thomson; You had had milk and firewood free for three months, and, no doubt, you recognised that there was some return due to the Ashcrofts for their kindness to you? Witness; I suppose so. Continuing, witness said that she did not think the meals her husband had wore worth 25s a week, and the children’s mdals were not worth 10s each per week. Witness asked Mrs Ashcroft for fiftteen shillings a week. She made the request to Mr Ashcroft later, and he told her to pack her duds and get out of it. That was not a nice thing to isay on such a very wet day as. it w r as. However, witness did leave the property that tMy. Mr Thomson; Then you saw your solicitor! inadq a claim for 30s a week.

Witness ; It was quite right to do so, after beiii£ turned down by Ashcroft in such a spirit. Re-examined; In speaking to Mrs Ashcroft it was understood that payment would be made. Mrs Ashcroft said witness could make what charge she liked.

Alfred C. Morgan, labourer, said 1 lie helped in the cowshed in the morning during the fortnight, his wife, doing this job at night. Mrs Ashcroft helped with the milking when she wa s at homeTo Mr Thomson: Witness was at the cowshed every morning at 6 o’clock. There was no occasion on which Ashcroft had finished milking and gone to the factory before witness turned up. VERY YOUNG CHILDREN. To the Court; Witness and bis family were now living on the next farm to Ashcroft’s. Mr Tate : Can’t you keep your wife in a house. Witness: There was a house on the last job we had. We are trying now to get a share-milking job. In further reply to the Court witness said his children) were aged six and four. Ashcroft’s children ranged from ten downwards. 'The meals were usually of meat and potatoes, with rico or sago pudding and teaMr Tate; You couldn’t expect more than that if it was properly cooked.

Witness; You generally look for a duff.

Continuing, witness said lie expected his wife to bo paid for what she did. It would be a change for his wife to be in the house instead, of a tent, hut there was a good deal of work involved. They returned to tile tent at night and slept there.

> In evidence, defendant said Morgan used more firewood for himfielf. He was not likely to burn rubbish .when there; was good firewood haiidy. Morgan got two qularts of milk daily, and witness told him he could not keep this up, as the cows were going down. This quantity was supplied for ten weeks and five days, and its value was £3 15s. The meals supplied to Morgan were worth £2 10a for the fortnight, and to the children £2-

Mr Moss You’ll be suing us for board yet. Witness said Mrs Morgan made a demand for 30s but he said she owed more thhn that for milk. Mr Moss: I put it to you that you. would have a hard job to get a woman in to look after your seven children. “Your wife’s a Briton.”

Witness: Oh no. My wife’s only a handful and she can look after the children and help with the milking. Mr Moss : Your wife is a. Briton to look after eight young children and jalso help in the cowshed’, but would it be easy to get ,a woman, other than your wife, to come in and do that work.

Witness: Oh yes. In reply to the Court witness said Morgan was engaged to cut firewood for him at 14s per cord. Re-examined; On the first morning his children were on their way to school wtihout having had breakfast and without their lunch, before the Morgans came over to the house. Mr Tate: Why didn’t you pay the 30s and get rid of the matter. Youve had more than 30s worth of trouble out of the matter since. Witness; I reckoned they were in my debt. Grace Ashcroft, wife of defendant, said when Morgan arranged to get the milk he said he would pay for it She returned from Hospital after ten days, and for'the remaining four days Mr and Mrs Morgan did not do much work in the cowshed. Mr Ashcroft usually had the work nearly completed when they arrived at the cowshed. To Mr Moss; On previous occasions when witness was away from home the house had been looked after by a girl permanently employed Witness thought there wou be’ no difficulty in getting a woman to look after the house. As a matter of fact, witness’ girl of ten could have done the work, but witness did not like keeping her from school. In making the arrangement Mrs Morgan did not say that she would not work for nottiin^* Addressing the Court, Mr Thomson said that all the services between the Parties were on a neighbourly basis, and there was no expectation of payment. Mr Tate asked if Mrs Morgan he ped with the wood-splitting. Defendant volunteered the information that he, had seen Mrs Morgan helping in that work. M»r Moss said the attitude of t e defendant was a breach of the Truck Act. Mr Tate said that if Mrs Morgan helped with the splitting it was reasonable that she should be paid for her work for the Ashcrofts. s It was a pity Ashcroft had not paid the 30s when it was first demanded. Judgment would be for that sum, with costs 10s.