THE COURTS.

Press, Volume LXV, Issue 19723, 13 September 1929, Page 8

THE COURTS.

MAGISTERIAL. THURSDAYSefore. Mr E. C. Lew-;-, S.lf. -e = s xtas eonvictrd ar.d -:rdZTtd to pay - : J Ivs r^-r-ii'*i v. h:T-1 a '*""man, ' a ir = " offender, iras convicted and £ned j I?s, in defa-iit C 4 hcttr." isprisoameat. j OWNER OF DOG FINED. j Jine« Myr-ie. Tickrr. for -K-hc-m Mr D. ; W. RtiEeil spfe'iro<i '""■' as finrd 2C>3 a-d i .■-.. =;. ior ti'r oi a BREACH OF PROBATION. A labourer. Aib-:." Taoma' Weed. '.'4. a '£S ciarfd -r: - ;-. br'.r:i.2g -he :*rc= of ri : s rtiejs*-"-.r on probation. He pleaded ; fa:!:;'. I The Maiiitra:* that he understood i iron Mr Darby, the Probst:;n Ohieer. th3t j ac..-tia€d had not '--on very frank. "I will j idicura th:.» to;? f-:r h-!f ah hour and nnlii'i yon tell hi a hat he wants to know j I esv deil very sharply with yon." ■ When the ca=e was heard later Mr Darby wid tha; he ' LsJ Uen -ibie to obtain _ a j iittie more i-fornt3tior.. The man. he said. | u . a = one for v.-horn they hid been 10-kir* for j over t«-o yosrj. He h2d been charred oriztnaiiy with the theft of an overcoat at H=.n j me'r. b'J* hid disappeared. Acc-ised had den* little work since that time, and his j ■«r:fe 2nd children, who were living at Sockburn, were in pitiable conditions, having had very' lit-'e feed. V."ood's trouble was partly die to hi« drinkin? habit?, and he sagsested a prohibition order might assist him. Th>- Maristra'e adjotirned the case for thre« months to rive accosed a chance to 'how that he still had some rood in him. "That is ££":n? very near Christmas, and if yoa do not wish to spend that inside yoa vriil have regard for I have said. I am adjonrni-s the case for three months instead of sivin; yoti th-ree months." A prohibition order was issued. CONVERTING A BICYCLE. Duncan Brotvn tss charged with unlawfully convertin? to his nse a bicycle, valued at £3, the property cf Bruce Mertoa. Mr W F. Tracy, who appeared for accused, stated that the bicycle had been found in the yard of the bakery where accused worked, together with other evidence of there bavin? been a drunken brawl. The cycle had been there some time, and finally Brown had used it. "Is was 3 foolish thing t« do," said the Magistrate, in convicting Browo and ordering him to come up for sentence, when called upen within six months. NEIGHBOURS' FETTD. "This assault is the culmination of • feud between two neighbours." said Sub-Inspec-tor P. •J. O'Hara. when William Hugh Johnston was charged with unlawfully asaauiting George Mitchell. Mr Gravestoa appeared on behalf of accused. Il was stated that aecased and Mitchell, ■who were neighbours, had a dispute over a dividing fence, accused stating thaS Mitchell's horses had kicked it down owing to their having "greasy heel." On the eveninf in question Johnston had stopped Mitchell on the road, and after an argument, hai struck him down with a stick. Mr Graveston said that defendant's plea was that Mitchell had called him someihinz objectionable—accused was a cripple—and he ha<f struck him only when he thought he »« Mitchell's" arm coming tip to strike. Steps had been taken to set the Crown Lands Department to make Mitchell pat up this fence, but Mitchell had ignored notification from that office.

The Magistrate convicted Johnston and fined him £2. Ftating that accused could have taken better means to settle the dispute. (Before Mr H. A. Young, S.M.) CIVIL CASES. Judgment by default was entered tor the plaintiff in each of the following cases: Iv.Z. Farmers' Co-operative Association, Ltd., v. W. Vaughan, jun., £8 17s od; Christchurch City Council v. Mrs Mary Lord, £7 19s 9d;" same t. Mrs Isabella Charlotte Jenkirs, £7 15a; same v. Mra Janet Sarschett, £7 14s; same v. Louis Raymond Clark, £8 6s sd, same v. George Reginald Woods, £7 186 sd; same v. Edward Phillips, .£3-12s lid; same v. Mrs Margaret Umilv Clarfcson, £9 18a sd; same v. Christchurch Products, Ltd., £3 17s 7d; same v George Percy Smith, £9 76 9d; same v. Mrs Leah Beecroft, £2 15a "d; same v Mra Ellen Emily Maud Martin, £l2 3s 3d; same v Harry John Saggers, £5 8s 3d; came v. Richard Arthur Bradbury and Mrs Eveleen Laura Bradbury, £1 5a id; same v. Mrs Annie Matilda Martinesgo, £46;: 10a Id. use «£ Eaaton BourbJß and Mrs Agnes Bourhill, £l7 10s sd; same v. Mrs Teresa Palermo, £1 16s Id; same v. Mra Ria Kingi, £5 12a; same v. William Smith, £l2 13a "«d; same v. Mrs Katherine Ann Brunton, £ll Is 2d; same v. George Reginal Martin, £ll 10a 3d, same v. James Kogan, £6 17« 4d; same r. John Griere. £6; same v. Charles Walter Cooper, coets onlv; same v. Mrs Lucy Jane Barrett, £lO 2s sd; same v. Frederick Belton Pilcher, £ls lis 9d; same v. Edward Leg-g, £3 IBs 3d; same v. Leonard Victor Lewis, £5 23 3d; same v. Emma Jane Beet, £3 5s lid; same v. Gordon Fraser, £5 -fa lOd; same v. John O'ConneU, £6 14»8d; saw- v. Mrs El'en Tavlor, £7 2s 8d; same v. Mra Barah Emily Tasker, £7 8s 4d; same v. Peter Scott Ramsay, costs only; Bruce Woollen Macufacturin? Co., Ltd., v. J. Robertson, £23 Is 7d; Thomas Perry and Son, Ltd., v. A. G. Pratt, • £2i 18s 4d. TAXI-DRIVER'S ALLEGATION. J. T. Erridge, taxi-driver, formerly employed by C. 3. Trillo, taxi proprietor, of Christchurch, claimed from the latter £ls 15s and costs for wages alleged to be due to him The statement of claim set out that the defendant was a taxi-cab proprietor, carrying on business in Christchurch, and bound aa a subsequent party to the taxi-drivers' award, ai-K) that the defendant employed the plaintiff a3 a taxi-driver from July 20th, 1929. to Angus'. 30th, 1323, (in v.hich day it was allescd defendant wrongfully dismissed the blaintitf without notice. Plaintiff claimed to be .entitled, under the tan-drivers' award to two weeks" waires, up to August 30th, not paid to him by the defendant, and to one week's wages in lien of notice, a total of three weeks' wages at £4 10s a week. Plaintiff further claimed to rfteove.r the sum of £2 5a paid by him on account oi defendant to L. Short The total claim was ior £ls 15s End costs. Mr K, G. Archer appeared for the plaintiff and Mr W. F. Tracy for the defendant. I The case was adjourned sine die pending [ the decision or the Arbitration Court on i appeal in the easa of the Inspector of Awards against Trillo. CLAIMS FOR WAGES. 3. Fraser, engineer, of Christchurch, proceeded against E. Reece. Ltd., for wages alleged to be due under the Engineers' Award. Mr K. G. Archer appeared for the plaintiff and Mr W. J. feim for the defendant compan rIn the statement of claim the plaintiff alleged that the defendant company was a party to the Northern. Taranaki. Wellington. Nelson, Csn'erlj'irv, and Otago und Southland Engineer?' Award, and for a period of twen'y--5;.x weeks and over, prior to August 3rd. lOCS', employed the plaintiff to do work covered by the av.-ard. It was further alleged that the defendant eompar.y had failed and refund to pay to the plaintiff the wiges provided in the award, rfimely. ?:\ 39,5 a week, and had paid bi-n £3 13; a week only. Therefore plaintiff claimed to recover arrears of wage?. tw* n »y.«iT weeks at £1 6« a week, totalling .£33 16=. <". S. made a s'roilar claim siair.it E. Il«;ec?, Ltd., the amount being £4O 6s. After hearirg lengthy eviderce. the Magisj (rate gave jtjdjrr.ent for the plaintiff in each I case, with to.sts for the asm of £4 4s Sd j in the ra»e of Fraser, and £l7 19s in the ease of Beckinsaie. ! CLAIM DISPUTED. Dr. Georgo Homer Gibson (Mr E. A. Lee) of 47 Shakc?peare road, Waithaa. claimed from Charles Pu'ford (Mr M. J. Burns) £l6 s = . be;:-iE balance of fee.-- due for attendance to defendant's wife. Defendant disputed the j claim on the ground that a conversation at j the doctor 7 ? con«a!:iog rooms betwee de■l fendant's nife and plaintiff's wife on the I mbje'.-t of religion while the former was I suffering from a nervous treakdoT.-n. was the i .-!iu=e of hi; wife's present nervous comJ plaint. i Mr Levyey said that he could not quite . wherein the defence lay, ss apparently 1 there was no question that the work had j been done, and its quantity and quality had I rot been assailed. Jast because two women j talked he could cot gee that there was a reason for not paying the bill claimed tor lin this case. There was a possibiiltv of other ac*'on, but in ;h» present ;a?- "there j was in direct evidence bearing on the mat- " ter of the b'Jl, He gave ■iidgment for plaintiff for the J amount claimed with costs.