MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18540, 10 April 1930, Page 7

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

TIMARU. APRIL 9. (Before Mr C. R. Orr-Walker, S.M.) Drunkenness. A first offending inebriate, who was arrested on Tuesday night, and who spent the night in the cells, was convicted and discharged. Civil Cases. Judgment for plaintiff by default was entered in the following undefended civil cases:—P. Davey v. Frank Price, claim £2 13s 3d, costs £1 3s 6d; T. E. McPherson and Co., v. Bob Stuckey, claim £l3 10s 9d, costs £2 14s Od. In a judgment summons case, Charles Clancy was ordered to pay J. F. Lewis £2 14s forthwith, in default three days’ imprisonment. Breach of Award. The Inspector of Factories (Mr G. McKessar) proceeded against Morton and Co., on a charge ol failing to pay the award rate of wages as indicated the storemen and packers’ award. Defendant was represented by Mr W. D. Campbell. Mr McKessar said the position was rather a delicate one. and also a serious one. A man named O. Greenhouse, who was employed by defendants, made application for an underrate workers’ permit, and after considerable investigation it was agreed that he should work tor £3 10s instead of £4 5s per week. This permit was for six months, and at the end of oat period a doctor’s certificate was obtained, and the permit was extended. The Inspector stated that he visited defendants’ fruit store, and found Greenhouse lifting all classes of boxes of fruit. It was stated that, apart from actual selling, Greenhouse was equal to any of the other men. The Union considered that he should be paid £4 per, week, but when this was conveyed to defendants, they dispensed with Greenhouse’s services. He was out of work for a period of two weeks, and was then re-engageu at £3 10s per week. The defendants had re-engaged the man, as an underrate worker, without having secured a permit. The Magistrate: “Who grants the permit?” Mr McKessar: “Either the Union o* myself.” Mr Campbell said that the Arbitration Cov.rt placed the onus on Ihe Inspector to decide whether an underrate permit should be granted. In this case the rate was fixed. A permit was first granted, and was later extended. The Company were not prepared to pay £4 per week, and notified the Inspector to this effect. Greenhouse, after his dismissal, went back to the firm and begged to be taken back. He gave the firm to understand that he had secured an under-rate permit, and the defendants had not acted in accordance with the terms of the award, because they had not asked to see the permit. It would not be denied that defendants had employed Greenhouse at less than the award rate. The Magistrate said that most employers would have taken a man’s word under the circumstances. The man had evidently, in desperation, mis-led his employers. The explanation showed that defendants had not been guilty of any gross breach of the award. They had been guilty of accepting the man’s word that he had received a permit. He thought that a nominal penalty would meet the case. Defendants would be fined 10s. The Magistrate said that he took it that the difference in wages would have to be paid, and that in itself was sufficient penalty.

Further Evidence Needed. J. J. Mimro. insurance agent, of Timaru (Mr A. D. Mcßae) proceeded against W. R. Wooding, of Geraldine, for £8 13s sd, being the amount due on a promissory note oue on December 3, 1929. Plaintiff stated that defendant gave a promissory note in his favour for £3 13s 5d on July 1, 1929. When the note was not met, he called on defendant, and also wrote to him. Defendant said that he could not pay, as ho hi d not received his milk cheque. He made several promises to pay, but cad not do so, and defendant finally told witness to take whatever steps he liked to recover the amount. He would deny that Mrs Wooding had paid the amount to him in December. He htd not received a single penny frtm either defendant or his wife. To the Magistrate: He was in Geraldine about the middle of December. He did not visit Geraldine again between that date and the time of handing the note to the solicitor. The Magistrate: “You made several visits to defendant?” Plaintiff: “Yes.” “Before the note was due?”—“Yes.” “Why did you do that?”—“Because defendant told me that he would receive cheques on certain dates.” The Magistrate: “You remembered you had made several visits because you had previously told me you had done so. It is strange to me that you should call before the note was due.” Mrs Wooding stated that she pa: a the amount due either on December 21 or 23. Her husband had received his milk cheque a few days previously, so they met their liabilities. Plaintiff did not have the note with him, nor did he give witness a receipt. He said that a receipt would be sent with the insurance policy, and that he would bring the note next time he called. To Mr Mcßae: She called at the office of the Southern Cross Company after she received the solicitor’s letter, and before the summons was received. Had she called earlier, it would probably have saved a good deal of trouble. Defendant said that when his wife visited Timaru, she found that the office of the Southern Cross Company was closed. His wife did not visit plaintiff’s solicitor because the money had been paid to the Company’s agent. He was not present when the money was paid to plaintiff. Recalled, plaintiff said that on December 20 and 21 he was at Alburv. He was not in Geraldine on either of those dates. On December 23 he was at Hadlow and in Timaru. The Magistrate: “That does not prove that you were not in Geraldine on either of those dates.” Plaintiff further stated that all that defendant’s wife had said was false. The Maeistrate: “She says the same of you.” Continuing, he said that he wanted the matter cleared uo, and would adjourn the case until May 7th in order that defendant could call further evidence. Alleged Food Shortage. The Inspect • of Factories (Mr G. McKessar) proceeded against W. J. Clarke, mill-owner, of Seadown, for failing to supply food to men on a mill as required by Clause 8 of the Threshing Mill Employees’ Award. Defendant was represented by Mr W. D. Campbell. Mr McKessar said the case arose out of a breach of the South Canterbury threshing mill employees award. A complaint had been made that on Sunday. March 2, the men who were on defendant’s mill, whicn was threshing on Mr Gaffaney’s property, had to go without breakfast, as there was no food. Andrew Anderson, said that he was on defendant’s mill on Sunday, March 2, as cook. On the morning in question there was flour, tea and sugar, available, but no meat, bread or butter. The Magistrate: “You didn’t need to starve exactly.” “Did you bake the bread?”—“No, out I made a few scones.” “You didn't have quail on toast that orning?”—“No.” Continuing, witness said that there

were six men on the mill at the time. Breakfast was usually held at 8.30 on Sunday, but on this day they did not have it until 9 o’clock. Mr Gaffaney, when he heard that there was no food, sent down a loaf of bread and a pound of butter, and made the most of this. Witness told defendant's son on Saturday afternoon that food supplies were running low, but defendant did not arrive until about 10 o'clock on the Sunday morning. To Mr Campbell: Defendant had three mills working at the time. He had been in business for many years and should have known how to supply food to the mills. Defendant was supposed to supply food on Mondays and Thursdays, but he did not always do so. On the Thursday previous, defendant left two loaves of bread, some beef, and .some sausages. The bread supply for the week was four loaves. Butter was also supplied on Thursday. Mr Campbell: “Did you get any more meat on Friday?” Witness: “You need two sheep and a half for eleven men.” "Did not defendant’s son bring you ol f a sheep on the Friday?”—“No.” “Defendant arrived at 9.45, did he not?”—“Yes.” “Some meat went bad, didn’t it?”— “No.” “This particular day was the only day on which there was a food shortage.”—“Yes.” Mr McKessar: “Would you consider four loaves a week sufficient for eleven men?”—“No.” James Gaffaney, farmer, Washdyke. stated that on the Sunday in question he met one of the men off the mill, who said that they had nothing for breakfast. He went to his house and secured a half a loaf of bread and a pound of butter. He did not know what the men were actually short of Alexander M. Thompson, who was employed on the mill, said that he asked the cook for breakfast on the Sunday morning, and he said he had nothing for them. He stated, however, that they could have a cup of tea if they wanted it. The men decided to stay in bed rather than get up for tea only. The cook did not say anything about scones. Witness said that he had worked for defendant for many years, but had never had cause to complain about the food. The Magistrate: “The cook must have misled you, for he states he haa plenty of scones. It is a pity you did not raid his pantry.” Mr Campbell: “Did you complain to Mr Clarke?”

Witness: ‘ Yes, I told him the men were dissatisfied.”

“And you said, they were going to strike?” —“I don’t think I said that.”

“Mr Clarke then said, ‘to make a long story short, you had all better take three days’ notice.’ ” —“Yes.”

Mr Campbell said that the onus was on the mill-owner to supply sufficient food. Defendant had been in the business for 26 years, and had had as many as twelve mills out at one time, This particular mill had only been out since the previous Monday. On the Thursday, defendant purchased 751 b of beef and 181 bof sausages and delivered them to the three mills, which were working. The cook on this particular mill also was given butter on the Thursday. Subsequently it was found that there was ample meat, bu». it had been allowed to go bad.

The Magistrate said that obviously the cook was the agent of the owner, and if there was no food, the owner was to blame. On the evidence, mid on the cook’s own statements, he was to blame and not the owner.

Mr McKessar said that the Cf'ok had told him definitely that there was no food in the place. The Magistrate said he felt that if the men had known the facts, they would have made no complaint, excepting against the cook. The cose was not one for a penalty. Had the men known the position, they would not have taken up the attitude they did. The Inspector withdrew the inhumation. Private Hotel Award. The Inspector of Factories (Mr G. McKessar) proceeded against W. Hutchison, proprietor of the Balmoral Hotel, for failing to'pay the award rate of wages as prescribed by the private hotel employees’ award. Defendant was represented by Mr W. D. Campbell. Mr McKessar said that the defendant, who was a party to the original award, employed a cook and a kitchen maid. In the busy period, he employed a porter, who for part of the time, was required to go in the kitchen. This fact entitled the cook, who was receiving £2 16s, to be paid £3 13s 6d, as (he porter’s presence increased the kitchen staff. The Magistrate said that the particulars in the plaint were very vague, and someday a less lenient counsel would require further information at the expense of the Department. Ellen Darcy stated that she was employed as a cook at the Balmoral Hotel. During the busy period, Mr Luke, the porter, assisted in thp kitchen, for a period of about two hours every morning. At that time there were about sixty people in the house. Witness considered that she was working up to twelve hours a day during the Christmas rush. To Mr Campbell: She knew the size of the kitchen staff when .he vas engaged. The kitchen staff uid r.ot wash all the dishes. She did not give defendant notice, nor did she inform him that she intended leaving. She was not satisfied with the conditions because she was obliged to woik very long hours. Mr Campbell said that the defendant had occupied the u.otel for seven years, and during ilie whole oi that time, the kitchen staff had consisted of two hands. Last Christmas was as busy as previous years, and defendant maintained that two people could easily do the work. Luke was engaged solely to do the work of a porter, although at times he assisted in work which defendant himself was not able to do, but he was not engaged to do kitchen work nor was he paid for it.

Mrs Hutchison, in evidence, said that Luke was engaged as a porter, and nothing else. He had been in the kitchen, but it was his own doing.

Evidence was also given by defendant.

The Magistrate said that he would reserve his decision, as the interpretation to be placed on the word “employed” would require looking into.