Employers and Workmen’s Act at Conisborough.

June 1901

Mexborough and Swinton Times, June 21

Employers and Workmen’s Act at Conisborough.

William Clark, farm labourer, was summoned by Thomas Stacy, a Conisborough, farmer, under the Employers and Workmen’s Act.

Mr Baddeley appear for the complainant, and Mr Andrew for the defendant.

The complainant said he engaged the defendant at 18 shillings a week and a shilling commission, the defendant to take the milk out and look after the horses, and as men were difficult to get he insisted on the defendant agreeing to 1 months notice on either side, but some time ago. The defendant had said that he would rather work on the land, and the complainant said that when he could secure another man in defendant’s place he could do so.

He had been unable to secure another man, and in consequence defendant left without giving notice. Owing to the defendant terminating his engagement with him. Thehorses have been standing idle for 18 days, and he estimated his loss to be £2.

In reply to Mr Andrews, the complainant, said he had paid the defendant weekly but the agreement was a month.

William Clark, the defendant was called and sworn, and said he was engaged by the complainant at a guinea a week and one shilling commission. He soon found out that he was not suited for the work, and told Stacy that he would rather work on the land. He gave Mr Stacey notice on the 20th, but stayed a day over, leaving on 28 May. He always considered the engagement the weekly. He was still living at Conisborough; he did not know that. Mr Stacey had got another milkman, as his son had been round with it.

The Bench award the complainant 9/6 damages, the defendant to pay the costs 10/6.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.