WAGES CLAIM

Waipawa Mail, Volume L, Issue 156, 6 September 1929, Page 3

WAGES CLAIM

DAUGHTER AGAINST FATHER. AN UNFORTUNATE CASE. At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Mr A. M. Mowlem, b.M., a civil action was heard in which Molly Blake claimed £l5O alleged to be due as wages from her father, J. A. Blake. Defendant counter-claimed for £177. moneys paid to plaintiff. Mr White (Hastings) appeared for plaintiff and Mr Holderness (Hastings) for the defendant. At the outset the Magistrate suggested that this was a ease which might he settled privately, hut Mr Holderness, after consultation with his client, decided to proceed. The plaintiff, Molly Blake, stated in evidence that she went to work on her father’s faun in 1923. Did the house work for about eight months, and then started farm work, including the milking of cows. The question of wages was not discussed till some time afterwards, when defendant agreed to pay her 15s a week. He paid for about three months. Witness’ brother was present when the agreement was made. Asked defendant again and again for wages unpaid. hut every application resulted in a row. All other employees on the farm were paid regularly. The milking averaged from 12 to 14 cows. In 1925 witness and defendant milked 2f> rows without assistance right through the season. Left defendant last December over the question of wages, the matter being brought up by witness’ sister. Plaintiff told defendant that she intended to take proceedings to recover wages due. Had only one holiday during the time she was working for her father, who gave her £2O. Had help from hr brother and sister in the way of clothes and cash. Before Christmas received a cheque for £5 from her father, but did not cash it as she considered it was not sufficient for overdue wages. Counsel for defendant read a list of payments made to plaintiff extending over a period of years, but witness said the cheques were for household expenses.

Arthur D. Blake, brother of the plaintiff, stated that he was present when defendant agreed to pay Molly 15s a week. All other employees on the farm were paid regularly. Molly did the whole of the cooking for the farm. Had given her money and bought articles for her.

Doris Blake, sister of the plaintiff, gave evidence corroborating that of the previous witnesses in regard to the agreement as to wages. Oswald Rasmussen stated that about twelve months before pla ntiff left home he was present when a discussion took place in regard to defendant’s treatment of his daughter. Blake admitted that he not treated Molly well and promised to treat her better in the future. Was also present at a heated row at which both daughters and defendant were present. Blake used abusive and threatening language and witness took off his coat, but was prevented hv the daughters from proceeding further. Miss Blake told her father that unless lie paid her the wages due she would force him to pay. THE DEFENCE.

Mr Holderness said the defence would show that there was no nr- i rangement to pay wages. Plaintiff ■ was supplied with everything, and if 1 she wanted to go for a holiday she was given cash. For a short period defendant allowed his daughter 15s a week on the understanding that she pay for her own clothes, etc. Tt was an experiment but it was not successful, and the old system was reverted to. Counsel quoted legal decisions in support of his contention that between relations there must he an actual contract. J A. Blake . defendant, said the plaintiff had resided with her mother in Waipawa, but they could not agree. Witness was induced by his son and daughter to build a bouse on the farm. When plaintiff went to the farm to reside she had a free hand to buy what she wanted. She did the housework and assisted with the milking, hut was not compelled to do the latter. The payment of 15s a week was in the way of pocket money, so that she would not have to ask for evervthing she needed. During the period under review had given her cheques for upwards of £l7O. and had also given her cash when asked. Was quite sure that the payments by cheque were for plaintiff’s own use. During the time plaintiff resided on the farm she had two holiday trips to Auckland. For the second trip he gave her a cheque for £5 and later another for £2O. It was not true that plaintiff and witness milked 26 cows through a whole season. Was not without help at any time for longer than six weeks or two months. Did not order his daughter out of the house. The home was there for her at auv time so long as she was single. Had never had a row with her over money matters. Provided her with cash to go to the pictures and dances. She and the son had the free use of the ear if they liked to ask for it. In reply to a question from the Magistrate witness said he did not think his daughter had stuck strictly to the truth in her statement as to her treatment. Giving judgment Mr Mowlem said that after some 12 or 15 years’ experience in Magistracy he was beginning to get extremely suspicious of cases in which plaintiff’s and defendant’s names were the same. The circumstances of this case were very distressing. Not only was the daughter proceeding against her father, but another daughter and son gave evidence certainly not in the father’s favor. Then the father had gone into the box and stated that he did not consider the plaintiff had stuck strictly to the truth. Tt was to avoid such a position that he (the Magistrate) had asked at the outset whether it was not possible to arrive at a settlement. From plaintiff’s standpoint the case was very definite. She assumed naturally that her father would carry out the agreement made. It had been established that he had agreed to pay her 15s per week and did so for some months. Then it was discontinued, and the only explanation given was that he might have been a bit short of money. The defendant admitted as a matter of fact

that the agreement was made. In the face of that how could the Bench disregard the evidence of plaintiff and her witnesses? It did not appear to him fair that the plaintiff should be non-suited, but he would give the defendant the benefit of what he was reasonably entitled to. Judgment would be entered for the plaintiff for three years and a portion of a year at £39 per year, a total of £l3B. On the counter-claim for £l7O defendant would he allowed half as payments made to the daughter, so that the net judgment for plaintiff would be £53. Costs were allowed as on that amount,