CLAIM FOR WAGES

Stratford Evening Post, Issue 21, 20 August 1928, Page 5

CLAIM FOR WAGES

farm: !LABOU»ER sues. ROUGH AND READY RECORD. At the Stratford Court this morning, Ignace Hurliraan (Mr King) claimed £126 from Thomas A. Rowe (Mr Chrystal). Defendant counterclaimed for £8 2s 6d, for grazing. Opening his case, Mr King said the case in most wages claims there the case in most wages claims there was no support from written evidence of the contract, and the case largely rested on plaintiff’s own evidence and certain circumstances. The claim was for the whole amount earned by (plaintiff while employed by defendant. Certain sums - had been paid to plaintiff in cash and other sums had been paid on his account, in contravention of the Wages Protection Act. The object in claiming the whole amount was to get from defendant a statement of what sums he had paid. Plaintiff was a foreigner and might not be easy to understand in the witness-box. He had kept a record of his wages on the wall of his whare, and, a copy of that record would be produced.

A TECHNICAL OBJECTION. Mr King raised the (technical objection that the counter-claim had not been filed within the prescribed time. Mr R. W. Tate, S.M., said he would note the objection, but would allows the hearing of the counterclaim to proceed. If necessary he would further consider the matter. It did not seem right that the parties should be brought to Court again to deal with a matter which must be involved in the main claim. In* evidence, plaintiff stated that he started to work for Rowe in April, 1926, at 10s per day. He was employed until June 25th f 1927, but was off the job for seven weeks at harvest time. Rowe agreed to allow witness’ horse to graze on the farm, and it' remained on the farm for six months. Rowe said nothing about charging for the grazing of the horse. After leaving Rowe’s employment witness saw Rowe and demanded payment. Rowe first offered to pay £lO in full settlement. On anther occasion he offered to pay £l6 10s for a horse bought by witness and give him £2 in cash.

NOT RE-ENG AG NO. Cross-examined: Witness left Rowe’s place on several occasions. On returning in February witness was not re-engaged, but went . on working. The bed in his had been (removed. Michael Hannah, labourer, Toko, gave evidence that plaintiff a good workman, and also on (he matter of the usual wages paid to farm labourers. The luncheon adjournment " |S tlieu taken.