SUPREME COURT.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume II, Issue 563, 29 November 1915, Page 11

SUPREME COURT.

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. EX-APPRENTICE SUES EMPLOYER. His Honour Mr Justice Denniston land a jury of twelve were engaged in the Supreme Court this morning hearing a claim brought by John Teaban against the Christchurch Press Company for £5Ol damages, for the alleged failure of the defendants to properly teach the plaintiff his trade as a letterpress machinist. ' , Mr H. D. Acland, with him Mr T. '"W. Rowe, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr 0. T. J. Alpers for the tier fendant. Mr Rowe said the plaintiff alleged ihe had not been taught his trade in satisfactory manner that would j enable him at the,end of , his apprenticeship term to be competent as a i machinist. Plaintiff was apprenticed, to Mr Ludbrook in August, 11908, having been for. two years be- ! fore that with Weeks, Ltd., without | apprenticeship. Mr Ludbrook took |him on as an apprentice, in consid- ' eration of his two years with Weeks, | Ltd., and regarded him and paid him ias a second-year apprentice. Later, |Mr Ludbrook arranged for the Press ( ; Company to~take the plaintiff, as Mr Ludbrook and his partner had disi solved partnership in 1911, and he i was unable to continue to teach plaintiff his trade. Plaintiff worked in the Press Company's office till ■ the year 1913-14, when he stated that; he had concluded his apprentice-j 'ship.. . ... ~..4 j

His Honour: Had he concluded? ! Mr Rowe: Yes, sir. ; i His' Honour: The defendants say: he left too early! :.l Mr Rowe: We assert that he' has had his six years' apprenticeship. •Plaintiff would give evidence that he; had ha J no opportunity of learning; the work connected with the cylinder machine, though he had repeat-; ! edly asked for an opportunity to do; so. He was kept working on the! platen machine. When he pointed; lout that he had:completed his ap-; | prenticeship: term he was offered a; cylinder machine and a wage of £2 i per, week. The wages of a competent machinist were £3 5/- per week.: A machinist had to first obtain from his union an under-rate permit to enable him to work for less than the ;award rates of wages, and the union refused to grant plaintiff such a permit. As a result of the defendants failing to teach him his trade plaintiff was unable ;to obtain work at his; trade, and the whole of his six years' of apprenticeship was practically; lost. ! William Geo. Ludbrook, said thatj he was in business in 1908, and tookplaintiff on as an apprentice. The! indenture was dated September 10,: 1907, but plaintiff actually began on; August 22, 1908. He had previously been ,in 'the service of Weeks, Ltd., but could not be indentured because Weeks, Ltd., had the. full number, of apprenticed. antedated the indienture because plaintiff had been two years with Weeks, Ltd., and beciause of the difficulty in getting boys at that time. His Honour said ante-dating of documents was an exceedingly dangerous practice. Witness: It is a common practice in the trade. Even the Press Company are sinners in that respect. Witness said he paid the plaintiff during his first year with him as a second-year apprentice. He was instructed in the cylinder machine. Witness went out of business in 1911, and the Press Company took plaintiff on. While plaintiff was with witness he was a very willing boy. Teahan was difficult to deal with, according to the manner in which he was approached. He suffered acutely from stammering, and it "was necessary to speak quietly to him. Mr Alpers said the Press Company disclaimed dating indentures back. Witness said that for six weeks before leaving him plaintiff had full charge of the cylinder machine. The principle in "making ready" was the same in the case of the platen and the cylinder machines, but there was a great difference in the degree of difficulty. Under careful conditions of teaching, the plaintiff should learn the . cylinder machine in J2 months. , Plaintiff was present durf ing an interview i witness had.; with Pine, preparatory to plaintiff enter*ing the Press office. He believed he drew Pine's attention to the dating of the indenture.

Maurice Teahan, father of the plaintiff, gave evidence as to the ap|prenticing of the boy, and his later entry into the employ of the Press Company. He saw Pine in 1913, arid urged that plaintiff should be allowed to work a cylinder. Pine replied that he could not put him in front of other boys. In September, 1914, Pine told witness that plaintiff wanted to leave. Witness said plaintiff's time was up, but Pine denied it. Plaintiff, in evidence, said it was not correct that Pine had suggested to him that he might get an underrate permit. When he was unable to get an under-rate permit he was kept on at journeyman's\wages for five months. He considered the statement that he had been put off owing to slackness, due to the war, was only an excuse. To Mr Acland: When he left Mr Ludbrook lie was receiving 25/- per week. The Press Company paid him h. -

Joseph William Davidson, machinist in the employ of the Lyttelton Times gave evidence of a technical nature as to the processes of the platen arid cylinder machines.

Mr Alpers said the defendant admitted the cylinder was more difficult than the platen, and that they did not teach plaintiff its use. ! (Proceeding.)