CLAIM FOR WAGES.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LV, Issue 13928, 6 April 1909, Page 5

CLAIM FOR WAGES.

A NONSUIT

In tho Magistrate's Court this morning, before Mr H. S. Fitzherbon, S.M., Daniel Keeran, a half-caste, sued George Pitt for"i'3o 12s Id, being balance of wages alleged to be duo. Mr Wilkoi appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, and Mr M alone for the defendant.

Plaintiff stated that he was engaged to work for defendant at L' 2, a week. He worked continuously from June 22 to January 13, with the exception of a fortnight in January, when he was on holiday, lie lived on the defendant's, farm. " It was arranged that Pitt was to pay plaintiff's food bills, deducting the amount from his wages. When ho asked defendant for his wages he was told to "clear out," and that there was nothing owing to him. He considered himself as a sort of manager. He looked after the stock, the cutting of noxious weeds or firewood, and so on, tmd he was in charge during shearing time. He produced a diary showing the nature of his Work cay by clay. To Mr'Malone: He was engaged at> a farm manager, and not as a labourer. He was boss at shearing lime. His arrangement with defendant was for £2 a week, free house and garden free, grazing for a horse and a cow. and firewood, and also the guaranteeing of store bills. These extras did not amount to 30a a week. He remembered leaving the farm in July and August for two days attending the Land Court. His two weeks' absence might have boon in December. His reference to January was a mistake. His claim did not include those two weeks. H^ had no recollection of the defendant coming to him and getting particulars of his working time. He got a week's notice in January, not in December. He did not remember giving a receipt (produced) for £2 to defendant for balance of wages due to him at the expiration of his week's notice. The first arrangement was for witness to get os worth of meat per month ;' then this was varied in September to 10s. It was not altered again that he was to get 15s per month.Wild Keeran, wife of the plaintiff, gave corrofjorative evidence. Mr Wilkes was proceeding to call further evidence, when his Worship referred to the receipt which if was alleged was signed, by the plaintiff, and pointed out that unless he could show that it was obtained by fraud, or that the receipt was a forgery, it would be -wise for him to accept a nonsuit.

Mr Wilkes preferred to go on, but at a later stage, on the suggestion of his Worship, reconsidered his decision and accented a nonsuit.