Dispute About Wages.

Taranaki Herald, Volume L, Issue 12289, 23 June 1903, Page 2

Dispute About Wages.

CASE IN S.M. COURT.

In the S.M. Cofurt on Monday afternoon a case of disputed wages was heard.

A. R. Ped'die, builder, sjuejpl Bluckman J Chjuclk and Co, flax/millers- at Mokau, for balance of wages due. Mar T. S. Weaton (Weston ami Weston) a'plpeared for the plaintiff, and Hir 'Qjuilliam (Oovett and, Quilliam!) for the defeniialnts. The plaintiff, claimed £6 10/, being mWie up as follows: One week's wages, £3 6/, while waiting 1 for wort to foe resiumeid £1 for board, 11/ for day in going up, and three otiher days at 11/. The plaintiff, called by Mr Weston, ( gave evidence in shipjport of "hi® claim. Hie stated he was engaged by Mr J. Buokman, manager of the Co., to b,uiJd certain flaxoniHs at Mlokau, amd the items he now claimed he disputed when the defendants paid him the last cheque . JETe was engaged up there for , some four nnonttos, tihe wages to be 11/ per day and food. Be and Me Buckman had previous acquaintance t at Blenheim, but he never got the better of Mr Buckman then.

T. Giesen gave evidence tihat he h'aid been enployed by defetridiants an<d had trouble in getting his m;oney. Herem'errtbered Peddie accepting £4 10/ from Buckman on account.

Mr Qjuilliam callejd John Buplcman, nuaniager for the defendant firm, who stated he engaged Mr Pedjclie at 'New Plymouth at 11/ a day to do worjk at Jtfdikau in erecting flaScrnill buildings. Subsequently he included fodcT in the engagement. There was. a breajk in the work, and Mr Peddie agreed to do work elsewhere with Mr Gdesen till the mill work was ready again. After he kept time again-at Mr Peddie anJd considered that Mr Peddle was charging for more hours than he had put in on the work. Hte considered Mr Peddie had put in for £7 too mta.c!b, hut they paid him tiis amount, anfcl considered that they hod settled in full when they pasd him the- cheqtieg,which the cadh book showed had- been cashed. Ho heard .Hr PetHdie accuse him of doing him over a property at Blenheim some years ago, but as: a matter of fact Peiddie got the better of him over a 'property. . ( By Mr Weston: He did not consider that he had #ot the better of Peifeiie at Blenheim. W!hen .Peddie went Jirp to Mokau "he was ' engaged in ,ithe erection of three mills ior the defendants. He ''did ' not • consider that Ped'die should be paid fox tjhe timie he was waiting for miaterialj as Pedjdie and Giesen had done work for M> Jacob in such slack, time. Ped'die had drawn plans, but witness did not use them. , , Hiis Worship said that the case was somewhat complicate*! and the, &vi-r de&ice conflicting."- Witih rdgajrH^to .a charge of 11/ .a.. day for going up to the work he did not. tthijnk th-at the mioney couM be claimed unless there' was a . special agreement to pay for time in such going up. It _ was' ad— \ matted that the three days}— NoV. 10, 11, and 12— had been paid and were included in payments shown. Wdtfe i regard to the charge for the weejk, Dec. Ist to 6th," His WorsihJp considered that an imjplied eorifcract to I keep Teddie in wages, etc., waiting for material would not hold, and- in Ihe absence of any explicit agreement he considered plaintiff could not claim for this week, .Judgment was for defendant with costs £2 ' 5 11/. - ,