WAITARA COURT NEWS

Taranaki Daily News, 8 February 1928, Page 4

WAITARA COURT NEWS

COMPENSATION CLAIM. A claim for £24 16e Cd, including loss of wages £22, was made by Joseph Carmichael, labourer, from John Bring, carrier, in the Magistrate’s Court at Waitara yesterday, before Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M. It was alleged that while plaintiff was engaged in extricating defendant’s motor lorry from a soft portion of the road in Strange Street, Waitara, defendant so negligently and unskilfully drove and. managed the lorry that defendant was knocked down and injured. In giving judgment in favour of the defendant, with costs £3 lie, the Magistrate said that from the facts it seemed that defendant was not liable to the man of whose presence he was not aware. The defendant said that on January 11 rt had been raining very heavily, ! and his lorry had been stuck in Strange Street with a load of shingle. He got out with a man named Easton, who was in the lorry with him, and was just going to crank the engine when plaintiff came up and said: “I’ll give you a shove.” "It doesn’t matter,” he had replied, "I think I can manage.” "Every little helps,” said plaintiff, but defendant had eaid it was an everyday occurrence in Waitara in wet weather. Easton went td the front of the lorry, and defendant said: “Don’t shove there, Bill, anywhere but there.” Easton then went to the right liana side Of the lorry. Defendant pet the gears in reverse and got out of the. difficulty. He then saw Easton supporting plaintiff. When he last saw Carmichael he was standing on the footpath, and he did not see him again until after accident. He said: “Are you hurt?” “No,” said Carmichael, 'you couldn’t hurt mo if you tried.” He examined plaintiff, but could find nothing wrong with him and saw him walk down to his whare. He saw him again in an hotel that afternoon. He had no knowledge that plaintiff was assisting him in extricating hit krry. William L. Easton in evidence said he did not see plaintiff pushing on the side opposite to him. It had been contended by counsel for plaintiff' that Easton had moved to the right hand side of the lorry because he knew that plaintiff was on the other side, and that defendant knew be was there also.

CLAIM FOR WAGES. Alfred George Postell claimed £146 from Edward Whittaker, farmer ot Okoke, which he alleged was the balance of wages owed him for work on do fendant’s farm. Plaintiff was non-suit ed, costs amounting to £6 18s. For 14 years, said plaintiff's counsel Pestell had worked for Thomas Wright, of Okoke. Leaving him, he had taken a holiday in New Plymouth, and there, on Christmas Eve, 1925, was offered em ployment by defendant. On January 1, 1926, he ’started work, and went on until November of last year, when he gave notice of his intention to leave. Plaintiff had been paid irregularly throughout’ that period the sum of £l3B. He claimed payment for 94 weeks’ work at £3 a week (the rate he was offered), less the £l3B paid. When he left, plaintiff offered to take remuneration at the rate of £2 Ids a week. It was, therefore, claimed that there was a contract at £3 a week, or that payment should be made at a just and reasonable rate. Besides his ordinary farm work, plaintiff had taken on contracts for no special remuneration, and had split posts for fencing and firewood on the rough bush country. He had also erected fences. Hubert Henry Maddick, manager of a labour registry, said that 35s was a common wage for a labourer. For a consistent and conscientious worker in the Okoke district ho thought £3 a week was a fair wage. Thomas Wright, farmer, of Okoke, said he was unable to say what he was paying plaintiff at the end of 1925. He thought that £2 IDs to £2 15s was a fair wage for a man with th© capabilities of plaintiff. Counsel for the defendant submitted that a special contract at £3 a week and found had not been proved. He would prove a contract of 30s n weex and found, which ’would put aside any question of whether plaintiff was worth more or not. Edward Whittaker said the first intimation he had that plaintiff wanted work was a’ message through his daughter. Defendant had returned home late one night and found plaintiff at work. Plaintiff had then said that “a home and a few bob a week” was all he wanted. He denied having spoken to plaintiff at New Plymouth. When plaintiff asked for the first cheque he had said: “Give me what you like.” Defendant had given him £l2, which was £1 10s a week. Francis Murray Whittaker, wife of defendant, said the first she knew of the plaintiff’s wages was when the first cheque was paid. She had told plaintiff to make up his time and he had asked for £l2, which was 30s a week. ’ He could not find that there was a contract for £3 as far ae plaintiff was concerned, «aid the Magistrate. The weight of evidence pointed to a contract for 30s, otherwise plaintiff was entitled to nothing. Judgment for the plaintiff by default was given in an undefended civil ease, H. Wells and Co. v. R. A. Bezzant, for £3 Ils 6d (costs, 23s 6d). On a judgment summons, Wliati Wipa was ordered to pay C. Dunbar 'the sum of £6 l(te 2d forthwith, in default six days’ imprisonment.