FARM LABOURER'S CLAIM

Stratford Evening Post, Issue 21, 20 August 1928, Page 6

FARM LABOURER'S CLAIM

WAGES SUED FOR,

A COMPLICATED CASE,

Hearing was reserved at the Stratford Court this afternoon of tho case of Hurliman (Mr King) v. Rowe (Mr Chrystal), a claim for £126 for wages', with a counter-claim for £8 2s 6d, for grazing. R. H. Burmester, accountant in the office of Messrs Newton King Ltd, gave evidence that on December 16th) there , was posted to Rowe an order on-him from Hurliman, for the sum of £l6 11s sd. .

To the. Court The amount had since been paid, But not hy Rowe. It represented the purchase price of a horse.

DEFENDANT’S CASE. In opening Iris case, Mr Chrystal said he regarded it as one of peculiar effrqnter'y. Plaintiff was engaged on a definite contract, but lie went elsewhere to do other work during the time he was employed. Defendant held that at November plaintiff was paid in full. When plaintiff arrived back in February -he was not under any contract. In each case plaintiff left Rowe’s, place at the busiest times. He went to Xvakaramea for the. harvest and he arrived back just When'Row© was finishing his harvesting. The hoarding of an exemployee was not regarded as serious by a farmer, and Rowe -was of opinion thjat plaintiff was staying only a short, time before going north. The summer and autumn of 1926 Were the wettest of recent years, hut plaintiff said he only lost eight days dining the course of thirteen weeks. Iho figures of time worked supplied hy plaintiff were ridiculous- Howe had destroyed his record of Uurnman s time worked, which was quite reasonable in view of the Ju* tluil ™ claim was made for ten months Entries from Rowe’s records showed that £lOl 15s 2d had Ween paid .to plaintiff, thus including the grazing of the horse. 1 \ UNREASONABLE CLAIMSRowe’s records showed that in the first period he had paid for 40 days. There were 73 working days in the period, and plaintiff claimed fv 66, winch was quite unreasonable in view of the weather at the time. In the Second period plaintiff claimed for 86 days, and had been paid for 52. in the witness-box plaintiff had admitted that in the rough account he had kept he had omitted to note certain payments made by Rowe, and the : probability was that plaintiff s record of days worked was also hot correct. For the last period plaintiff claimed for 98* days. At this time things were very bad and fawners were being asked by the Government to employ men for their keep only in order to ease the position. During this period plaintiff received payment for 84 days, and this at a time when men could easily bo seemed for no wages, merely their keep being given. For the time he had worked plaintiff had received an average ol £2 15s a week, and, allowing for his keep, plaintiff was making £4 5s a week, so that it was unreasonable that no charge should be made for the grazing of plaintiff’s hors©. 4 or his good nature in permitting plaintiff to stay on the farm during the period from February, Rowe found Mmself forced with the present claim. .. In evidence, defendant said that in November he agreed to a final settlement by tho payment to plaintiff of £7 10s, and payment of his account. On plaintiff’s return in February witness did not regrad him as working for him, hut ho asked him to give him a few days ou getting mcful. On one occasion plaintiff came to the milking-sited and asked for the loan of £l. He had never made a demand for wages owing. Following reports which were going about, witness saw plaintiff and) asked what money was owing toi hini, but the other could gay. (Proceeding).