An Important Case.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume III, Issue 414, 8 February 1890, Page 2

An Important Case.

The case Arundel v. Wade, which earns before tbs Jostloea (Messrs Tooker and Mattheweon) on Thursday, although the amount involved wae not large, was of tome importance, as one part of tha claim turned upon an usage of trade. It appeared that Arundel had engaged the defendant's son to go to Tologa Bay to do sons plumbing work, and now claimed the coat of his keep at Tologa Bay. which the plaintiff had to pay, The plaintiff's right to charge thia amount was disputed, and evidence wae taken as to what was the custom when workmen had to go some distance to 'their work, as to ths payment of their expenses and keep. Foe the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself said it was customary to pay a man’s expenses to go to the work, for ths time he took in going, and the time ha took on the job. The workman kept himself while be wae at work and received nn remuneration for the time he took to roach hie home again. Messrs F. Hall (painter) and W. 0. Skeet (carpenter) gave evidence of a similar usage in their respective trades, and Mr J. Maher (carpenter) stated the rule in similar terms, but said that on a racent occasion he took three days to go to Makariki and bis employer (Mr J. Somervell) refused to allow anything more than hie board while he was on the road to the work. For the defence Mr Wade stated that the rale in the plumbing trade was to pay all expenses to and from the work aa.well as the workman’s hoard, and ha hid Invariably punned that course with Mr Arundel himself while he was in his (Wade's) employ. Mr J. W. Smith (plumber) had bad considerable experience both in England and the colony, and had always understood the rule in his trade to be that all the expenses both ways and lodging were paid by the employer. Board alone was excepted. This was with regular hands, and he didn't pretend to know what would be the case with regard to casual hands because he always kept a sufficient staff to meet all demands. Mr J. Brown (engineer) always paid everything from the time a man left the shop until ho came back, and never took country work without making allowance for the extra expense. The Juetiore adjourned the matter until yesterday morn, ing, when they gave judgment for board £l, grazing for horse and ferriage one way, in all £1 3s 6d, costs for two witnesses each for half a day 10s, and the usual costs of Court and solicitor’s fee. In the earns action, on an order tor an amount given by Arundel on Wade, and accepted by the latter, was also claimed. The order had never bean paid by Wade, and it was contended on behalf of the plaintiff that the order had been debited against him. Mr Wade's books were produced, and from these it was clear that although the order had at one time been charged againet Arundel it had subsequently been struck out, the defendant alleging that thia was done because the plaintiff had requested him to take no notice of the order, as be had got other moneye with which he intended paying the person to whom the order was given. This part of the claim was disallowed by the Justices. Mr Nolan appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Sievwright tor defendant.