A MASTER’S LIABILITY.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2693, 24 December 1909, Page 4

A MASTER’S LIABILITY.

CLAIM FOR WAGES,

At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning, before Capt. Chrisp and Mr A. H. Wallis, J.’s P., Geo. Barbour (Mr. Burke) proceeded against Marl Davis (Mr Kirk). The claim was for six days’ wages 25s 6d, and 30s in lieu of a week’ c notice. Geo. Barbour, laborer, plaintiff, deposed that on Saturday, November 13th, he started work for dependant at 3Q S a week._ On December 3 tEey had an altercation over a horse and defendant ordered him to leave. Defendant had never complained about the way the work was done by witness. His work consisted in delivering vegetables and minding the garden. Witness went to defendant after he had been dismissed and asked for his money. Defendant then said he would not get a penny. To Mr Kirk: Witness had been shown a small paddock by defendant when he was engaged and was told that he could keep his horse in it. The horse was in the big paddock on December 3. Defendant had spoken to witness about not putting his horse in this paddock. Witness did not remember making any improper suggestions to defendant’s wife. Mark Davis, blacksmith and gardener, defendant, said the arrangement re" garding the horse was that- plaintiff had to keep it in the small paddock only, the other being kept by witness for his cattle. Plaintiff had frequently disobeyed this injunction. On December 3rd the horse was in the cattle paddock and witness told plaintiff to take it out. Plaintiff then said he would take himself and the horse off. They afterwards had angry words and witness told plaintiff to leave the house.

To Mr Burke: Witness had no objection to the plaintiff finishing his week’s work, but he would not have him at the house. Witness only ordered plaintiff out of the house.

Mrs Davis also gave’evidence as to plaintiff’s conduct. The bench said they had decided that the evidence of improper suggestions had not been corroborated, but. they were also of opinion that the disobedience of the instructions were such that the discharge was justified. Judgment was accordingly given for defendant, bup the Bench refused to allow cost R against plaintiff.