THE COURTS.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 19941, 30 May 1930, Page 8

THE COURTS.

MAGISTERIAL

THURSDAY. He-fore Mr E. D. Mosley, H.li.j DRUNKENNESS.

Martin Joint Mullaly, a labourer, aged 82, a third offender, pleaded not guilty to a charge of drunkenness. He was further uliurged with entering Coker'E Hotel during the currency of his prohibition order, aud further with obtaining liquor from some person unknown, to which charges he pleaded guilty. .... He was sentenced to U days' imprisonment with bard labour for drunkenness, and was convicted and discharged for breaking his prohibition order. REMANDED.

Ronald Bertie Moher, u painter, aged 23, of 49 Lawrence stre«t, was charged with stealing three motor tyres and three motor tubes, of a total value of £3, the property of Allan James Cameron. He pleaded not guilty. Senior-Sergeant J. J. O'Grady sold there were other charges puuding, aud asked for a remand to June «3th, which was granted. BROKE PROHIBITION ORDER.

Thornton Newsome (Mr A. J. Malley) was fined 20s and costs for obtaining liquor during the currency of his prohibition order.

ON- LICENSED PREMISES. Wijlie.ni Musson waa fined 20a and costs for being ou the licensed premises of the Phuinix Ilotel after hours. LINK NOT CLEAR. Edgar Hastings Cambridge (llr V. \V. Johnston) was fined We and costs for attempting to cross the Mutipo street railway crossing when tlie lino was not clear. Mr Johnston ttaid his client pleaded pu'.Uy, but there were extenuating circumstances which he wished to explain. While the signal at the crossing was an excellent one in the duv-timc, it was pract : cally invisible nt night unless the lights of the approaching car happened to strike it. The train which defendant had struck was a long goods train, and the engine had already gone over the crossing when dofondant approached. Do--feniiant had struck the lirio of unlighted tracks. His car had been worth about £7O before tho aceidenl, and he had sold the debris for .210, so he had already buffered a henw penalty. The Magistrate said he would take this Into consideration and inflict only a light penalty. CHARGE WITHDRAWN. A charge airainst Albert Ucnry Way and Elsie Way that, on November flth. 1928, they stole a woman's overcoat va'uad at £4 4s,'tho property of the Mary Lee Frock Shop, was withdrawn. CIVIL CASES. (Before Mr H. A. Young. S.M.) BREACH OP ACT. R. T. Bnlley, as District Registrar of Apprentices, Christchurch, proceeded against Benjamin Henry Riseley. motor body builder, of Christchurch, for the sum of XIO pen Blty, for an alleged breach of the Apprentices Act. .... , a It W3H alleged that defendant employed as an apprentice one Gordon Leighton, and failed to rogittor a contract o-f apprenticeship. Judgment was given for plaintiff for 5». BREACHES OF AWARD. T. A. N. Johnson, as an Inspector of Awards, proceeded against Norman William Robinson, mercer, of Christchurch, for £lO penalty, tor an alleged breach of the Canterbury 6hop Assistants' Award. It was alleged that defendant failed to close his shop on Easter Monday in accordance with the award. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £l. >&. Kennedy, as an luspoctor of Awards, proceeded against Edith Lavers, outfitter, of Christchurch (Mr AI. J. Burns), for £lO penalty, for an alleged breach of the Canterbury Shop Assistants' Award. Tho defendant was alleged to have failed to close her shop ou Easter Saturday in accordance with the requirements of the award. Judgment was given for plaintiff for XI. JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT.

Judgment for plaintiffs by default was! eivon in the following casc3:—The N.Z. Karra- j «rn' Co-op, Associotion of Canterbury, Ltd. ■ v. T. Manning, £l4 7b 84; A. S. Paterson and C0.,-Ltd. v. 0. J. Lawrence, £l4 9b 8d; Auiaebrook and Co., Ltd. v. M. E. fecott, £2 Oa 6d; Sun Insurance Ofilco, Ltd. v. H. Blocklcr, £8 10s 8(1; Ganiage Cycle Co., Ltd. v B. Stotliers, £1 sa; D. D, Popplewell v. J. Jl. Batvß, £l2 10s; J. Oilby v. Archibald Charteris Smith, £7 19s 3d; Christchurch Buttery Co., Ltd. v, A. Driscoll, trad ing as the Car Rental Co., £l6 IBs; S. D. WalUs, Ltd. v. ,T. Langford, £1 10s; U. H. Brown and Son, Ltd. v. It. 8. Lange, £3O 4s 2d; samo v. C. Wllliama, £3l 10s 44; Baroe v. C. Gooeh. £46 lis lOd; David 8. Laing and Sou, Ltd" v. 3ZC Broadcasting Service, Ltd., £5 6«; J, Chambers v. 0. Shannon, £3 10s 3d; T. V. Gwyn v. A. Legge, £8 15b; Henry Berry and Co., Pty., Ltd. v. R. Hempstalk, 15s 8d; Thomas Quinlivan (suing on behalf of the Orown) v. John William Hcaumonti £8 17s; Mating and Co., Ltd. v. A. J. Smith. £!) 4a 6d; Woßtport Coal Co., Ltd t. A. B. Church, £5 18a. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. J. Hetherington was ordorcd to pay Bay Campbell the sum of £1 19s 6d forthwith, in default threo days' imprisonment, the v.-arrant to be suspended so long as defendant paid 2o 6d per week off the amount dup. (Before Mr E. D. Mosloy, S.M.) 1 OVERTIME CLAIMS. George Swift, hotel worker, of Ohriatchurch. claimed from Ernest F. Ward, hotelfcoeper of Motbven, £lll 4s, alleged to bu overtime due to him, and also a proportion of wages duo in lieu of holidays. Mr W. J. Stacey appeared for Swift, and ilt W. J. Hunter for Ward. Swift had been employed by Ward as a barman at the Methven Hotel from October. 1928, to March, 1930. Evidence was given, aftar which the Magistrate said that the claim appeared to be unsutiefnotory. The employee hud not claimed his overtime until after he had been dismissed. Under the terms of the award he abould have clnimod such overtime within 48 hours of having worked it. "The whole claim." said the Magistrate, "is absolutely preposterous"; £5 a week, which was the wage Swift was receiving, was a very good wage indeed and it had been agreed Sy both master and servant that it should cover overtime.

Judgment was given for plaintiff for £3 on the question of wages in liqu of holidays; und judgment for defendant on all other parts of the claim. Two claims relating to the above cusp were made by R, T. Bailey, as Inspector of Awards, (1) against Swift for failure to claim overtime, and (2) against .Ward for failure to pay overtime. _ lu the ca3o of Bailey v. Swift, judgment was given for defendant, and in the case of Bailey v. Ward, the plaintiff was formally non-suited.