THE TRUCK ACT.

Timaru Herald, Volume XIIIC, Issue 14267, 5 August 1910, Page 7

THE TRUCK ACT.

THE HO LAI E STATION CASE

DECISION .RESERVED

A case of a. curtain amount of in-i terest to farmers generally, came up ?.fc the Alagistrate's Court vesterdav nuvrning. when A. S. Elworthy was 'charged with a. breach of the Truck Act, in fail- l ing to pay the entire amount of wages earned by William Palmer in money, having deducted from such wages certain money for goods supplied. Mr .R.olleston appeared for defendant, who pleaded not guilt v. The Inspector of Factories, Air Lightfoot, said that Palmer was employed by Mr Elworthy as a. blacksmith. JTo admitted that under section 47 of the Act. agricultural and pastoral labourers were exempted, but blacksmiths did not come under that exemption, and should be paid full wages. His Worship: Why not? On all large stations there is a certain amount of blacksmithiiig work to be done. Air Lightfoot said that Palmer also did work for other people. Mr Rolleston said that Palmer was a blacksmith primarily employed for station work, and he sometimes obliged farmers by aoing work for them. He held that the case clearly came under section 47. Mr Elworthy ' employed Palmer in connection with the work' or. the farm. He had built him a house, and by arrangement made at the time deducted rent and stores from Palmer's wages. When Palmer got his cheque, less the deduction, he was quite satisfied, and Air Elworthy had not known about any breach until Air Lightfoot came to him. Then he had paid up the difference, but that did not affect the present case. The first question in connection with the case was: —"What ts the business of the emplover?'' If the farmer was the employer'then the man was engaged in the .same business, and came under the exemption clause. It was just as necessary that one man •should shoe horses on a. large farm, as that another .should feed them. and another drive them. There was little difference between the position of the ploughman who drove the horses and that of the blacksmith win, shod them. On Air F.lwortli.v's farm it was necessary that one man should be spcciailv employed to shoe horses. The fact that. Palmer did outside work did not affect the question, Air Elworthv was merely obliging his neighbours, 'it was not hkcly that Ah- Elworthv would run a. blacksmith's .shop if he did not have a l.irin, and therefore it was clear that Palmer ivns employed in connection with the business of the farm.

Air Lightfoot said that the man was not actually engaged in work on the farm, and the exemption onlv applied to thoso tilling the soil, mindinc stock, etc. The case of a blacksmith "cmploved on a farm no more came under the exemption than that of a blacksmith employed in Booth McDonald's or iieid and Gray's. ' His Worship reserved his decision.