WAS IT A CONTRACT?

Waikato Times, Issue 12177, 12 September 1911, Page 5

WAS IT A CONTRACT?

TEST CASE AT HAMILTON. At the Hamilton Magistrate's ! Court yesterday afternoon the in- , spectur of awards, Mr Gohns, pro- ! eeeded against Richard Chilcott (Mr Swarttrick). In this case the In- | spector contended that a men employed 'Uy defendant did not receive £2 l (, s per week, the minimum [ wagie, and that meat to the value of five shillings weekly was mot allowed. The Inspector explained that Chilcott had in his employment a man named Fitzmaurice. Later defendant and Fitzmaurice came to an understanding whereby the latter was to hire a oart and horse from the former at £1 per week, feed and stabling being supplied in addition at this figure. Defendant supp'.i ii Fitzmaurice with meat at wholesale rates and Fitzmaurice was allowed the use of the shop in which to hang his meat. Under this arrangement Fit nmau rice supplied the same customers served by him when an employee of Chilcott's. Fitzmaurice kept a book in which he enters. ! all credit given to customers and at fcho end of <a,cb day handed the hook, with any cash which he may have collected, to Chilcott. The aeco'ints were duly made out Dr. to Chilcott and delivered i!;y Fitzmaurice. Fitzmaurice left Chilcott's

■nploy *n August, and *t tfcat time there were several debts by Fitzmaurioe's customers on Chilcott:s nooks. Fitzmaurice carried on business under the agreement for five weeks, and in that time Chilcott paid him £4 IDs. while the account of the 'boarding-house at which Fitzmaurice stayed and supplied with meat was credited to Fitzmaurice.

His Worship wished to see the books in which these accounts were entered and the Court was adjourned to -allow defendant to procure them. On returning Chilcott produced a ioose leaf showing his transactions w»th F'.tzmaurice, but the Magistrate desired the ledger in order to trace the amounts' owing, and after a little delay this was forthcoming. Giving evidence defendant, ijuestioiiied by 'Mr Gohns, said that FKtzmaurioe was serving anything from 40 to <>U customers, and when he left witness's employ he only took one customer with him. To Mr Sw a rbrick : Witness said that he 'did not employ Fitzmaurice in or aibout his premises, the only reason for the latter's comine to

witness's shop being to purchase meat at' Wholesale rates. All cash collected by Fitzmaurice for meat retailed (Poring the currency of the agreement was' F»tzmaurice's cash. Witness had supplied other men w\orkdm£ on the same terms','and one

of tbess be knew cleared over ':"> per week. Mr nest called Mr Bryant, who had previously carried on a retail business with his own cart obtaining: his maat from defendant. He began' by working for wages, ;..u.. when he bought the cart bte regard ed the customers as his and where credit wias allowed he sent out the accounts, l>ut en Mr Chilcott's Mil-heads. After the first few weeks Ibe commenced to scratch out Mr Chilcott's name and substitute his own

In the box Raymond Fitzmaurice said that when he went into the service of Mr Bryant, his present employer, he took several of 'Mr Chilcott's customers with him, but not any of those to whom credit was 'given. As regards the hire of the horse and cart a ntl the retailing of the meat, witness corroborated Mr Chilcott's statements. To His Honor : Witness said that be giave up the run because it did not pay him. To Mr Swarbrick : Fitzmaurice said that be simply went to Chilcott's shop to get his meat. Tha meat that he took from the shop was his to do as he liked with. Mr Chilcott in no way controlled his hours. To Mr Gohns : Mr Chilcott suggested the system of working and alio wed him to remain on* at wages u K UI he had worked up a round. The Inspector contended that there was a decided difference between the cases of Bryant and Fitzmaurice. He further contended that a verbal contract, such as this one, was only a device to get behind •2 award, and tbiu defeat the ends of justice. Mr Swanbrick on the other hand contended that the status of employer and employee had not been established, and His Worship, while thinking that there were several doubtful points, held that there was a bona fide contract, and entered judgment for defendant wtlth costs.

FURTHER CHARGES. The charge against Pitzmaurice was withdrawn. Mr Northcroft asked the bench w.hen the case of Houghton v. Ckfclcott would We and the case w-as set down for the 25th. Thi- ; is a case muoh on the lines of that of Fitzmaurice, hut the plaintiff denies the existence of a contract, verbal or otherwise. A BAKER'S BREACH.

The Inspector proceeded against Busliby, baker, claiming £lO as a penalty for employing a carter in the bakehouse. The breach was confessed, defendant statimg, in mitigation of the offence, that lie allowed the man, on his own request, to work in the bakehouse in the early morning so that he might have the Saturday afternoon oil to play foothal'. A conviction was recorded and a line of £■',. with 7s costs inflicted. Wm. McGXll, the carter in question, was fined £1 with 7s costs.