MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Colonist, Volume XLIV, Issue 10013, 23 January 1901, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

YESTERDAY.

[Before Mr H; W; Robinson, &M.]

Rogers v. Dodgshun,

His Worship gave judgment in this case in which Geo. Rogers sought to recover £63 10s, wages, from Nathaniel Dodgshun, Mr Fell appearing for plaintiff, and Mr Pitt for defendant.

His Worship said that he had put his judgment in writing, and the following is the material part:— "l take it as proved that on the first Saturday in August, 1898, the defendant agreed that the plaintiff's wages should be increased from 30s to £3 per week, but that he was not actually paid at the increased rate until April 30th, 1899. I also take it as proved tint the difference between 30s and £3 was kept by defendant in liquidation of an old debt of the plaintiffs to him. Also that this debt although extinguished by -plaintiff's discharge in bankruptcy, was believed by plaintiff to be still owing because defendant had not proved for it in the bankruptcy. . . The amount claimed is £63 10s, but the actual amount I make it to be £54. The only question to be determined is whether under the Truck Act, 1891, the plaintiff is entitled to recover. There can be no doubt that as matter of fact this amount of wages , was not actually paid the workman (plaintiff), by his employer in money. But it is suggested for the defence that by his acquiescence in the deductions the plaintiff has lost his remedy, arid that it must be taken that constructively he was paid in cash 'because the money he should have received was with his consent applied to the discharge of an obligation, or apparent obligation. In support of this view the case of Hewlett y. Allan, 1894, L. R. Appeal, p, 383, is cited I fail io see that the case referred to is parrallel with the case before this Court as the judges who decided that case seem to have been thoroughly impressed with the fast that the amounts deducted were paid over to a third person, and that the employer had no personal interest. But in the present case the deductions were made entirely in the interest of the employer, and have not been paid over to any third person. . . I take it therefore as established that the sum of £54 of wages earned by plaintiff was not either actually* or constructively paid to him by defendant in money, and I give judgment for plaintiff for £54 and costs." The oosts amounted to £11 18s, the total judgment being for £65 18s.