CLAIM FOR GOODS SUPPLIED

Wairarapa Age, 20 January 1922, Page 3

CLAIM FOR GOODS SUPPLIED

JUDGMENT FOR FULL AMOUNT. In the Magistrate’s Court yesterday Messrs G. H. Perry and Co., Ltd., proceeded against M. Brophy, Masterton, to recover the sum of £lO 12s 6d, the value of goods supplied and delivered by plaintiffs to defendant. Mr H. R. Biss appeared for plaintiffs and Mr J. Miller for defendant-. George Henry Perry, of G. H. Perry and Co., said Brophy had been working on witness’s farm, and was supplied with goods from the firm. Brophy wanted the goods at cost price, and witness said he could have them on those terms provided he paid his account from month to month. Brophy had not paid his account, and the law prevented witness from de- , ducting the amount from Brophy’s 1 wages.

To Mr Atller: The arrangement between witness and Brophy was made at the farm. w John Ackman, salesman, employed bv Perry and Co., identified .the counter dockets. He had had no Instructions from Mr Perry to stop the defendant’s credit, but was told to treat the account as an ordinary one. Mr Miller claimed exemption from the liability under the” Wages Protection Act, on the ground that Perry was personally the employer of the defendant, and was at the same time concerned in the firm which supplied the goods. Mr Free held that Perry personally, and Perry and Co., Ltd., were distinct identities. The section referred to in the "Wages Protection Act was included in order to protect such mon (is sawmill employees whose employers supplied them with goods, and often with drink, thus receiving back all the wages paid out. He was satisfied there was no sinister motive behind the fact that Perry and Co. had supplied goods to Brophy, who was employed privately by Mr Perry in the conduct of a business entirely separate from the firm. Judgment would be given for plaintiff for rhe full amount, with costs totalling £4 2s.