DISPUTED CLAIM FOR WAGES

Taranaki Daily News, 16 August 1933, Page 5

DISPUTED CLAIM FOR WAGES

HEARING AT INGLEWOOD COURT. LENGTHY EVIDENCE CALLED. A disputed claim for wages for work done at a sawmill on Norfolk Road occupied the attention of the magistrate, Mr. W. H. Woodward, for most of yesterday at the Inglewood Court. Jesse Isgar claimed £l5 13s 8d from Arthur Townsend. He was awarded £lO 15s lid, of which £8 6s 2d had already been paid into court by Townsend. Mr. I. P. Grant, who appeared for said a part of the claim (£2 16s 8d) was for wages for splitting posts and the balance (£ll 17s) was for work done in the construction of a tram line. The contest would be as to the number of hours worked by Isgar, the wages which were to be paid to him. and the number of posts split by him. Isgar in evidence said it was agreed between himself and Townsend that he should split 1000 posts at 4d each and work on the tram line at Is 6d an hour or £1 5s a chain. He gave evidence of the days on which he worked splitting posts or on the trani line and produced a wages sheet which he knew differed from Townsend’s wages sheet but which he would not show, to, Townsend when

they discussed the matter because Townsend “would take it out of his hide.” Mr. P. Thomson, who appeared for Townsend, submitted it had been made clear that there was no arrangement for the payment by Townsend to Isgar of Is 6d an hour. Isgar claimed wages for 158 J hours’ work at Is 6d an hour, but Townsend had paid into court for 104 hours’ work at Is an hour, less unemployment tax. This, it was claimed, was all that I»gar was entitled to in that respect. Townsend’s evidence would be that he was to pay Lsgar at Is an hour, the same wages as a man named Blackburn, who was working with Isgar, was receiving. Townsend counted the posts at the end of each occasion when Isgar counted them in company with another. The tally was made to be 199 or 201. The sum of £3 6s 8d was paid; into court for 200 posts at 4d ecah. That made a total of £8 6s 2d paid into court. Evidence on the lines indicated was given by Townsend, who said that Isgar split a quantity of posts which were not of the required length and were of no use on the open market. Detailed evidence was given on behalf of Townsend by Frank Blackburn, Charles Henry Volszke, Victor Simon Mischewski, Leslie George Schultz and John McClure, employees of Townsend, and Ivan Blackburn, a farmer on Norfolk Road.

His impression was, . the magistrate said, that the evidence of Isgar was honestly given and was unshaken. After hearing the evidence of Townsend, however, he thought that Isgar, though he was not speaking untruths, must be mistaken about the dates. . The defendant was supported by book entries and the story of his witnesses must be accepted. In one thing, however, he accepted Isgar’s story. When he went to work on the tram line it was not arranged what he should be paid. Isgar had asked for Is 6d an hour and Townsend should have stipulated the wage to be paid. It was for the man who was employing another to make it perfectly clear what the pay was to be. That would make a difference of 6d an hour for 104 hours, or £2 9s 9d. Isgar would be entitled to that in addition to the amount paid into court. On the other points he accepted the evidence of the witnesses for Townsend. JUDGMENT IN CLAIMS FOR DEBT. Judgment by default was given by plaintiff in the following undefended civil claims for debt: —F. A. Reesby v. F. Perritt, £6 10s 5d (£1 14s 6d costs); same v. Peter Goldup, £6B 2s 3d (£4 18s).