MAGISTRATE'S COURT, GERALDINE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 5541, 25 July 1907, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT, GERALDINE.

TUESDAY, July (Before Mr. C. A. Wray, S.M.) CLAIM FOR OVERTIME. Patrick Darragh v. John Maitland—claim XS3 4s for overtime as a baker in defendant’s e.-u amended claim was afterwards put in mlu'cing the amount to X-70 Gs. Mr. T. C. Farnie appraml for plaintiff, and Mr. A. P. Bu'rklie for defendant. Mr. Farnie explained that he had made on error in calculation in the original claim, hence the amendment, Mr. Burklic asked for an, adjournment of the case and a'n order of the Court to direct plaintiff to furnish full details, of the claim. They had applied to plaintiff fob details and had not been supplied with same. The Magistrate’s Court Act provided that full information as to the claim must bo given by plain tiff. The c a s,; was a peculiar one. Plaintiff’ had been originally employed to -drive a cart and Work about defendant’s shop. He had already been in a baW’s shop, and knew something a'-o-;* - V trade. ■When leaving defendant, which he did quite amicably, ho gave a receipt for all 1 wages in full, and .'alienvanhl came to defendant and got a certificate as to character, in which he was described as a journeyman. His client would take the stand, however, that plaintiff was not a journeyman, and was taking advantage of a technicality to put defendant in a position to have to meet a claim for overtime. Another reason for adjourning the jCaso Mr. Barklio put forth was that Mr. Raymond, who had the case in hand, was unable to 'appear that day. The first claim made by plaintiff' 'gave no details, but the amended claim gave a statement of so many hours a week. Tims was not sufficient information for defendant, who would have to go into the question of hours per day to bring evidence against -flui claim. Plaintiff ought to have given details when asked to do so. The case of Edwards v. Milling Co. 'boro out this contention. They lin'd their own view about the claim for overtime; ns' a matter of faeit, plaintiff was sleeping on the premises. The amended statement was ouily handed in the previous afternoon, and 'defendant had been taken by surprise. Directly ho (Mr. Barklic) got the statement he telephoned to Mr. Maitland, and found, that he was ill in bed with u 'doctor attending him, and lie would be unable to appear. For these several reasons lie asked for the adjournment.. Mr. Fairnio said ho did not personally object to the adjournment, but his Client was out of employment, and wished to go to Dunedin fo,r a job, and strenuously objected to having the case pul off. I’laiutilT could hardly bo expected to bung about Geraldine for a month, but he was simply leaving the matter in the hands of the Court, and not strenuously opposing 'the adjournment. If, however, it was gran fed !m held that plaintiff was entitled to costs. In regard to details he submitted that he supplied the weekly amount of overtime.

His Worship : I do not think that this is sufficient. Mr. Farnic said he would submit that it was so.

His Worship : Every item might be contended. You must give the hours of each day.

Mr. Farnic submitted’that under Itho Arbitration Act and award it was not necessary for plainltill to keep IV time book, but it was tire duly of Ihe defendant to do so. lie would pul in a sealed copy of ihe award to support his contention. His client had kept a time book, and in supplying defendant with a weekly statement—if lie also hail Iqept a time book—it would be sufficient, for him to eheet the amounts without daily details. On

the other, Land if defendant Lad not kept a time- book,; as Lo Lad reason to believe, and plaintiff furnished particulars it would bo possible ’ foa defendant to make up a time book boforo tLe Court, sat again. i

Jiis Worsl'rip : Ls not this the position ? The plaintiff entered into * con Unci to do certain w;ork outside the award altogether, and only now, utter the work is completed, ho claims to be within the award. Mr. L'umio ; ilo asked for overtime before.

His Worship : There is nothing to .-ihow that this is but a private contract outside the award. .Mr. Fairnii* said he unddrsltood, that plaintiff decided to work for defend* and for £2 a week, and then claimed £2 10s, and was paid £2 ss. His Worship said as to the matter rc costs of an adjournment -as ho was not well act plain led with the particulars of the case lie would hold his decision over. Mr. Farnie stud he was, going to suggest that course. His Worship said in the case there was evidently a technical question Involved. Could a man agree to, a certain sum and after being pain claim some other sum which he had not contracted for. ( Mr. Barklie : That is so. His Worship said he would adjourn the case for a month, and hold ovet the question of coats. Mr. Barklie again applied for the order asking for particulars of claim. Mr. Farnie submitted that ho was not entitled to give any more particulars.

His Worship : I must decide that defendant is entitled to a frill and explicit statement. You are claiming and have to give every facility. Mr Fannie said ho was instructed that defendant had not kept a time book, and he -objected to give full particulars, on that -account.

His Worship: If yon do not give full particulars you will place yourself in the position of having to accept a non-suit. The Court then rose.