THE WAGES PROTECTION ACT.

Colonist, Volume LI, Issue 12680, 27 October 1909, Page 2

THE WAGES PROTECTION ACT.

AN IMPORTANT JUDGMENT. WORKMEN, CONTRACTOR, AND EMPLOYER. At the Magistrate's Court yesterday several questions of importance were d-:-i !ded in the actions Smith nud others v. Monison, and Ash and r.-u---otuer v. Moriison. The plaintiffs wwe workmen employed by James Delaiiy on a bushfellinc; contract for defendant. The contract was put an end to on the 18th September. The last work doaie was on the 1-ith Scptembar, and the contractor owed the plaintiffs £37 for wages. The Wages Protection Act, 1908, requires the employer (the defendant Morrison) to retain 25 per cent of the contract money for 31 clays after the completion of the work. The workman may claim to bo paid their wages out of this money, .provided they give the employer notice claiming a lien on his land or a charge on the money. The notice of the lien must specify the land amd the notice of charge must specify the money. The notice of lien must be registered against the land within 30 days. If it is not so registered the lien is extinguished. If no notice of charge is given within 30 days the charge docs not attach to the money. In both car.es plaintiffs gave notico of lion ; but both failed to register the, claim of lieiii. Smith a,nd others commenced proceedings without filing a plaint note. The Magistrate held that proc -edings to enforce a. lien, is an action within section Go of the Magistrate's Court Act, and a plaint note must be filed. The solicitor for plaintiffs asked that the notice of lieni be treated as a notice of charge, as tho particulars were tho same in one notice as in the other, except that one had to specify land and the other money. His Worship held, after reviewing the cases at length, that the lien was extinguished for wa.7ifc of registration, and the charge had not attached for waait of notice, and that the Wages Protection Act did not give any right of action against the employer except the right to claim a lien or charge, and to enforce the same to the extent of the money that the employer had, or ought to have, in his iiands belonging to the con t rr ■'■•tor ; and tho right to enforce the l::n or charge depended on the exigence of a valid lien or charge in favour of tho workmen. If these did not attach for want of notice, or being attached became extinguished for want of prosecution, tho claim aga.iust the employer failed. He could not treat a notice of li^n as a notice of charge, or allow notice of charge to be given aftor the time fixed by the Act for giving notice of charge had elapsed. Mr Evans gave judgment for the defendant in each case without costs. Mr Hayes appeared for Ash and another, Mr MagiJimity for Smith and others, and Mr 0. It. Fell for the defendant-