CLAIM FOR WAGES.

Waikato Times, Volume 116, Issue 19352, 4 September 1934, Page 6

CLAIM FOR WAGES.

EMPLOYMENT ON FARM. JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF. The question as to whether plaintiff and her son were actually employed by defendant or were toeing given accommodation was the principal point at issue in a claim for £6 as wages, (brought by Mrs Camilla Buckton against John Wilcock, a farmer, of Rotokauri, which was heard before Messrs J. H. Gittos and F. J. McGuire, J.’s.P., in the Magistrate’s Court, Hamilton, to-day. Plaintiff was represented by Mr E. N. Miller, while Mr A. L. Tompkins appeared for defendant. Outlining the circumstances of the case Mr Miller said that plaintiff and her son lived in Hamilton at one time, and later moved to Rotorua, where they received a letter from defendant, offering them work on his farm. They accepted; Wilcock however, would not promise them definite wages, but said 'they could lake over a small property which he owned. After remaining on defendant’s farm for about four weeks plaintiff and her son left. She claimed wages on a basis of 30s a week. In evidence Mrs Buckton said that while she was at Wilcock’s she had to get up and milk the cows, starting at 2.30 a.m., and later site did house work. Not Actually Employed. Mr Tompkins pointed out that in his letter to plaintiff. Wilcock had said tic would employ tier and her son if they could agree upon wages. He submitted that no arrangement regarding wages load been made, and contended that plaintiff and tier son had not been actually employed by defendant. Wilcock had offered .them £1 a week and a bonus of 5s a week at the end of the season if they would remain for a year, but Mrs Buckton had declined to accept less Ilian 30s. It was admitted by defendant that some work was done by Mrs Buckton and her son, but not sufficient to compensate for their accommodation. Evidence on similar lines was given by defendant, who said he had had no demand for wages from plaintiff until he had received a letter from her solicitor. Remarking that the presiding justices considered that in reviewing all the circumstances, plaintiff was entitled to succeed. Mr Gittos gave judgment for Mrs Buckton for the full amount claimed, and costs.