WAS IT A CONTRACT?

Waikato Times, Issue 12178, 13 September 1911, Page 5

WAS IT A CONTRACT?

TEST CASE AT HAMILTON.

At tihe Hamilton. Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon the inspector of awards, Mr Gohns, proceeded against Richard Chilcott (Mr Swarbrlck). In this case the Inspector contended that a man employed 'by defendant did not receive £2 10s per week, the minimum wage, 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 2nd Fitzmaurice came to an understandsu»' whereby the latter was to hire a oart and horse from the former ait £1 per week, feed and stabling being supplied in addition at. this figure. Defendant suppled Fitzmaurice with meat at wholesale rates ami Fitzmaurice was allowed the use of the shop in wbioh to hang his meat. Under this arrangement Fi'tamaurice supplied the same customers served liy him when an employee of Chilcott's. Fitzmaurice kept a book in which,he entered all credit given to customers and at thai end of each day handed the book, with any cash which he may have collected, to Chilcott. The accounts were duly made out Dr. to Chilcott and delivered iby Fitzmaurice. Fitzmaurice left Chilcott's '•.-ni'ioy 'ln August, and at that time there were several debts by Fitzmaurioe's customers on Chiicott:s cooks. Fitzmaurice carried on business under the agreement for ■ five weeks and in that time Chilcott paid him £i 10s, while the account of the boarding-house at which Fitzmaurice stayed and supplied with meat was credited to Fitzmaurice. His Worship wishad 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 loose leaf showing his transactions wfth Fitzmaurice, but the Magistrate desired the ledger in order to trace the amounts owing, and after a little delay this wes forthcoming. Giving evidence defendant, questioned i»y '.Mr Gohns. Said that FKtzmaurioe was serving anything from 40 to fiO customers, and when he left witness's employ fee fiflly took one r-ustomer with him. To Mr Sw a rbrick : Witness said that he did not employ Fitzmaurice in or about his premises, the only reason for the; latter's coming to witness's shop being to purchase meat at: wholesale rates. All cash collected by Fitzmaurice for meat retailed during the currency of the agreement was 1 F»tzmaurice's cash. Witness had supplied other men working on 'the same terms,■ and one of these he knew cleared over. £5 per week.

Mr Goto- nest Called Mr Bryant, who bad previously carried on a retail business with- his own cart obtaining his meat from defendant. He began- by working for wages, Lu„ when he bought the Cart be regard ed the customers as his and where credit was allowed he sent out the accounts, but on Mr Cbilcott's bitl-heads. After the first few weeks be commenced to scratch out Mr Cbilcott'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 Cbilcott's customers with him, but not any of those to whom credit was gdven. As regiards the hire of the horse and cart and the retailing of the meat, witness corroborated Mr Chilcott's statements. To His Honor : Witness said that be gave up the run because it di,! not pay him. To Mr Swarbrick : Fitzmaurice said that be simply went to Cbilcott's shop to get his meat. Th? meat that he took from the shop was his to do as he liked with. Mr Cbilcott in no way controlled his hours. To Mr Gobns : Mr Cbilcott suggested the system of working and nliowed him to remain on at Uj>Ul 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 e award, and thus defeat the ends of justice. Mr Swarbrick on the other band 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 wfcth costs.

FURTHER CHARGES. The charge against Fitzmaurice Was withdrawn. Mr Northcroft asked the bench when the case of Houghton v. Cy icott would he taken, and the case was set down for the 25th. This is a case muoh on the lines of that of Fitzmaurice, but the plaintiff denies the existence of a contract, verbal or otherwise. A BAKER'S BREACH. The Inspector proceeded against Bushby, baker, claiming £lO as a penalty for employing a carter in the bakehouse. The breach was confessed, defendant stating, in mitigation of the offence, that he allowed the man, on his own request, to work in the bakehouse in the early morning so that he might have the Saturday afternoon off to play footbal 1 . A conviction wae recorded and a fine of £3, with 7s costs inflicted. Wm. McCfcll, the carter in question, was fined £1 with 7s costs.