CUTTING BLACKBERRY.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 144712, 22 June 1915, Page 7

CUTTING BLACKBERRY.

CLAIM FOR WAGES. A LEPPERTON CASE. In the Magistrate’s Court this morning, before Mr. A. Crooke, S.M., William Parker (Mr. A. H. Johnstone) proceeded against Harper B. Leppor (Mr. George Grey) for £4 12s, this being Hi days’ wages at 8s per day. . In opening, Mr. Johnstone said the plaintiff was a labourer living at Leppcrton, and the defendant was a farmer, also living at Lcpperton. The defendant had two pieces of land, one being about li miles from tho other, on which tiie homestead was situated. This land was badly infested with blackberry, and in October last Lepper instructed the plaintiff to go and cut tli© blackberry on the place, and to work there until he should go up and tell him there was no need to do any more. After plaintiff had worked for 15i days he happened to meet the defendant’s son, and in consequence of this conversation the plaintiff and defendant met, and it was arranged that defendant should _go up on Sunday with the plaintiff and inspect the work," but he did not do so. Some time later he paid Parker 325, for four days’ work, and plaintiff was now suing for the remainder of his wages, £4 E-s. William Parker, the plaintiff, gave evidence that Lepper told him to go on cutting until he let him know definitely when to stop. Ho stopped tho fern and blackberry after 151 days. He considered there was easily a month’s work to do. The day he started working Lepper came up to get two of his neighbour’s cows tbat were on tho property, but did not tell witness what work he had to do. To Mr. Grey: The property on which he worked was tho one which Mr, Lepper had recently bought from Mr. Crowe. He denied that defendant told him howmany days ho should work there; ho simply said there was a lot of work to bo done and would lie (the plaintiff) make a start with it. It would, in his opinion, bo impossible to mow the land. Joseph Walker, farm labourer with Mr. Eustace at Lepperton, said ho remembered going with plaintiff to Mr. ■Lepper’s house and finding that Mr. Lepper was out. Subsequently Mr. Barker and Mr. Lepper met, and in the course of thoir conversation witness heard the plaintiff tell defendant that he had worked on tho land for 151 clays. Mr. Lepper then promised to go up and see the work on a Sunday afternoon, but did not do so. Some time later Mr. Lepper said if it had not been for having to attend to two of his neighbour’s cow-s he would have told plaintiff how long he had to work on tho land. , This closed the case for the plaintiff. Mr. Grey said the defence was that the work done by Barker was not yvhat he had been asked to do. He pointed out that a great deal of the work done was useless. Lepper had simply asked the plaintiff to do three or four days work in cutting around_ tho stumps where the mowing machine would not cut. Instead of this Barker had cut fern and blackberry which could much more easily have been dealt with, by the machine. The defendant, Harper Lepper, detailed the circumstances of Barker s engagement. The noxious weeds inspector had asked him to attend to tho place, and witness accordingly instructed" Barker to do three or four days’ work with tho scythe clearing fern and blackberry around the stumps. On October 8 Barker’s boy told him his father had not gone to do the work yet, as ho had been working for Mr. Wheatley, but if witness liked he would start that afternoon. Witness told the boy his father had better start as soon as he could. That afternoon ho took some cattle up to tho property ,_ and also went to see about two of his neighbour’s cows. He saw Parker inside the gate working at some clumps of blackberry, but as ho was in a particular hurry he did not say anything to him concerning the work. To Mr. Johnstone; We agreed to most at the property at about 2.30. I went there and waited until about 3.30, and as there was no sign of Parker I wont away. I felt disgusted to think that any man could have wasted his time as •Parker had evidently done. The work ho had intended Barker to do had never been shown to him. He had not since put the mower over tho laud, as thcro was other work for it to do. To his Worship: The work could easily have been done with a machine, with the exception, perhaps, of a small porLl °Fredorick Thomas Crowe, farmer, living at Lepperton, said ho was familiar with the land sold by his father to Mr. Lepper. He had seen tho part on which Parker had worked. It had been ploughed eight to ten years ago. The greater part of the work done by Parser could have been done with a machine. That which would have to be Uone by hand could not have been done under a week. Tho blackberry bad been cut out of 20 acres, and the blackberry and fern out of 3J acres. To Mr. Johnstone; In the majority of cases the noxious woods inspector would not be satisfied with 3} days’ work. To his Worship; Blackberry would grow up fairly quickly after being burnt. Maxwell Lepper, son-of the defendant, gave evidence relative to his conversation with Parker, in which witness expressed surprise on learning that Parker was still working on the land, and told him he had bettor see his father. After further legal argument, his Worship said he must find for plaintiff for the full amount, £4 12s. Ho had, he said, no doubt whatever that Leppor did not convoy what he had in his muid to the defendant, who worked according to what he understood his instrnctions were. Tho magistrate pointed" out that although Lepper saw Parker working on the place he did not instruct him as to the work he wished to be done. Costs were allowed totalling £2 3s.