Please wait. Contacting image service... loading

Article text

WAGES APPEAL.
Question of Occupation.
The Supreme Court resumed on Tuesday
the hearing of an appeal by G. P. Harris,
Scarfe, & Co., Limited, Gawler plaoe, Adelaide
(represented by Richani Smith)
against a decision of Mr. T. Gepp, S-M-,
on an information laid by William Albert
Hutt, of Gilbert street, Bbwden-on-the-
Hill. Richard Smith, as managing director
of the firm, was ordered to pay £1
17/6 to Hutt. ana £2 2/ costs. In the
original case Hutt, who was described as a
storeman in the employ of defendants,
alleged that' the latter had neglected to pay
him a weekly minimum wage of £2 10/,
contrary to a determination of the Storemen.
Packers, Porters, and Night Watchmen"*
Board. It. was set forth that Hutt
had been in receitjt of only £2 a week during
five weeks, instead of the stipulated
rate of wages. He claimed the difference
for that prjod < £2 10/), less 12/6 paid him
on April 4. Mr. Acting Justice Buchanan
was on the Bench.
Sir Josiah Symon, K.C., with Mr. Angas
Parsons, appeared for the appellant firm,
and Mr. J. H. Vaughan for the respondent.
Mr. Vaughan continued his argument.
He contended that the fact that Hutt had
done odd jobs about defendant's bulk store
in Grenfell street was quite consistent with
his being a storeman.. What the Court
had to decide was not whether Hutt's work
was that of a porter, but whether it was
consistent with that of a storeman. . He
asked the Court, on the facts before it,
to say that respondent's placc of occupation
was a shop in the legal sense, and that
the Magistrate's finding should be upheld.
Sir Josiah Symon submitted that the
question to be settled -was. not bad Hutt's
duties been consistent with those of a
btoreman, but -whether the evidence had
shown absolutely that he was a storeman.
As a matter of fact, he had been employed
as a general hand, at the beck and call of
his superior?. His occupation came within
the definition of a porter.
$