Conisbrough Farmer’s Claim – Sequel to Workman taking French Leave

July 1911

Mexborough & Swinton Times – Saturday 29 July 1911

Conisbrough Farmer’s Claim

Sequel to Workman taking French Leave

Thomas Stacey, a farmer, of Conisboro’, claimed £3 from Thomas Thompson, described as a horseman, of the same place, for a breach of contract.

Mr F Allen appeared for the applicant, and Mr Philtop, of Doncaster, defendant.

Thomas Stacey said that on January 1 he engaged Thompson as a horseman, when it was understood that he would be employed until Martinmas, and it was agreed that if before that time either the defendant should desire to leave his master’s employ, or the witness wished to discharge Thompson, one weeks notice would be required to be given on either side. The wage was at the rate of 12/– per week, with £2 extra for harvest time.

The man had left his work on two occasions since Christmas without informing the witness of his intention to do so, but had in spite of that been taken back. On July 4 he rose at about 4:30 o’clock, and went away. He turned up again on the following Sunday night, when he asked for 2/–, saying that he knew he had been a fool. The witness said he knew that, refused to hand the man the money he desired, and told him to settle down.

However, the next morning the witness heard a noise occasion by somebody rising, and later found that the defendant had disappeared. He left a pair of horses “standing,” and the witness claimed £3, being six days at 10/– a day for horses, which had nothing to do for a week owing to the defendant’s action.

Thomas Thompson said that in January he went to see Mr Stacey, when it was arranged that he is should receive 12/– week, but nothing was stated as to any notice being given. He started working, and after four days the son of Mr Stacey went away, and the witness took his place. The reason he left was because the son had returned. He retired from the position he took up at the son’s departure and ceased work altogether, because he thought that there would not be sufficient to do. Mr Stacey told him the Saturday previous to his going that he would have to discharge some of the men, owing to the fact that he had not enough work for them to do.

Mr Allen argued that it was not the man’s weekly wages which ought to be considered, but the actual loss caused by his action.

Mr Philpot submitted that the amount claim was excessive, and that 12/– – a week’s wages in lieu of notice – would meet the case.

The bench assessed the damage as 48/– inclusive