George Oakey
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
History
| COUNTY COURT SMYTHESDALE Thursday, 19th February. (Before his Honor Judge Rogers.) | |
|---|---|
| White v Oakey-for wages; Mr Stedman for the plaintiff, Mr Randall for the defendant. The plaintiff deposed that the defendant came to his house and engaged him to work at the foundry, Scarsdale. He guaranteed him (the plaintiff) his wages. Had been previous to this, working for Mr Newman, the former occupier of the foundry, and had left him in consequence of not being able to obtain his wages. Had received various sums on account of his wages-the last two from the defendant. By Mr Randall-I summoned the defendant at the Police Court here for my wages, and the case was dismissed. The work I was occupied on after the defendant engaged me was making two puddling machines. Mr Newman was working at the foundry during the time. Mr Newman and others were present when the defendant guaranteed to pay me my wages. Alfred Newman deposed that the was the proprietor of the foundry at Scarsdale. He remembered the defendant going to the plaintiff and telling him that he would see his wages paid provided he would return to work at the foundry, he having left witness’s service previously. The defendant told witness that if he would give him an order to receive certain moneys, he (defendant) would see the plaintiff’s wages paid. Considered the plaintiff was working for the defendant, and not for witness. George Oakey, the defendant, deposed that he had a mortgage on the foundry. On the 27th October he saw the plaintiff, and asked him whether he was going to work again for Newman. The plaintiff asked him whether he would guarantee his (plaintiff’s) wages, and that he declined doing so. By Mr Stedman-I got an order from Newman for part of the money for the puddling machines, and received the amount for the same. All that I promised the plaintiff was to give him a week’s wages, provided he got the work done by a certain date, as I wanted to get the goods away, as I had heard that there was some judgment against Newman. His Honor said as there was no written guarantee he must give a verdict for the defendant, although it was no doubt a hard case.[1] |
Legacy
See also
Notes
References
Further Reading
External links
--Beth Kicinski 09:46, 25 January 2013 (EST)