Interesting Wages Case.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume IV, Issue 548, 23 December 1890, Page 3

Interesting Wages Case.

A Case of considerable interest to employers and employees on stations was heard by Mr B ioth on Saturday. P, By an sued A. McPhail for £2l 17« 6d, wages ; Mr Sievr wright for p aintiff, and Mr Finn for defen dant. Kyan ww employed by Mr McPhail, on, it Was oom ended, a yeany agreement. Ou being asked one uight to bring m some wood, after his ordinary work had been done, he refused, tefiiug the servant there was sufficient there. Mr McPhail heard the dispute, aud Ryan repeated his refusal to get the wood, wherenpou Mr McPhail threatened to throw him out. He theu went and got the saying it would be the last he wou'd get. Next morning he went to Mr McPhail and asked for his cheque, saying he wanted to 'eave. Mr MoPfiail toid bun he was a yearly servant Byan laid, “ WeL, you won’t let me go then ?” Mr McPhail said no. However, he left., and theu sued for his wages. Plaintiff said there was no yearly agreement, either verbally or otherwise, but the evidence of Mr McPhail, his son, and another witness was that plaintiff had wanted to enter into a yearly agreement, so that he would be kept on for the whole year, and after repeatedly questioning Bertie McPhail at the latter’s

advice he had gone to Mr McPhail, and made an arrangement verb&liy. Mr McPhail eaid he could have got a boy at 10s a week to do all tbe work required of the man at that particular pot ion of the year, but as the man himself had pointed cut, when the harvesting came round, tbe man would be there to do the thatching and other work, His Worship said that though the plaintiff and defendant direcUy contradicted each other in regard to tbe agreement, ths evidence of Mr McPhail, jun., and all the probabilities were in support of Mr McPhail’s assertion. Mr Finn said his client bad no wit>h to deprive any man of his wages—he felt that he hud been badly treated, and contested tbe matter on principle; in spi'e of the agreement Ryan hafi left ut a time which caused much inconvenience. Mr pfievwright c ntended that even if His Worship decided there was an agreement plaintiff would be entitled to what he had eurued (£1 a week) less a deduc ion of a month’s Wages in lieu of notice. This point was argued, the later editions of the law books quoted from being in Mr Sievwrfgtit’s favor. After argument Mr Finn said, even though Mr McPhail felt annoyed, fie wquld agree to let the matter rest at that. It was then agreed to record judgment by £4 to be deducted in hen uf M month s notice, and each party to pay bls own cosUh