MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 220, 10 June 1908, Page 14

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

POLICE CASES. (Before Mr. W. Gi Iliddcll, S.M.) James Boylei a young man, pleaded guilty to a charge of being an idle, and disorderly pors'o'n'Avitliin.. the meaning of . the .Police Offenaces-Act, 1884, in--that. lie had insufficient ' lawful "ineaiis of "support. On tho application ofSub-Inspector ' O'Donovan, defendant was remanded until Monday for sentence in order that, the police , might in the mcar'time niako inquiries into somo otliflr •matters. . . " A young man named John M'Laclilan was convicted and fined 10s., in default 48 hours' imprisonment, for insobriety, - and on a second charge of having used obscene languago on the Queen's Wharf was convicted and sentenced' .to; 14 • days' imprisonment. ' DeviHn,'charged- with drunkenness, was .convicted and "fined 10s., in default 4B hours'' imprisonment. Two first offenders .were'convicted and fined 55., in default 24 hours''imprisonment, and one was convicted and discharged.

. • CIVIL BUSINESS. , (Beforo Dr. A."M'Arthur, S.M.) UNDEFENDED CASES. ; .Judgment for plaintiff by default of defendant -was. entered".in',ilib following cases:— Thomas Kelly v. J. Wakclm, £6 3s. 10d., costs £1 14s; 6d.-j\-E.\' Reynolds and Co., Ltd. v. ' John Farrolly; :£9l 4s. 5d.,. costs £7 Is. ; sa'mo v. John Henry Farrolly, £41 7s. 10d., .costs; £3Os. -Od.; Wellington Operative. Bakers' Industrial Union of Workers V. Thos H. Hogg,£los.' 10d,,costs ss.': Arthur Bolton v. Jolm Campbell, £1 Is. 5d., costs 55.; Drapery, and General Importing Co., Ltd. v. Theresa Briggs, ', 55., costs 175.;. New. Zealand Fanners' Co-operative Distributing C 0.,. Ltd... v.."James>Brocklehurst, £2, 10s. lid.'.' costs -10s. j H.: Oscar Hewctt and .Co., Ltd. v. .Robert Wahle, £14, costs ■£1 15s. ,6d.-.; Allan .Smith ,v. Henry Mason, £2.155. 5d., costs 125.; Dresden Pianoforto- Manufacturing'arid'Agency,'Co., Ltd. v. Samuel Hicbsori, £20. 45.. od., costs £2 l 165.; The Stewart Timber, Glass and Hardware Co., Ltd: v. \Vm. Tinney, £21 Is., costs £2 145.; Dresden Pianoforte Manufacturing and Agency Co: v. Thos. W..Cook, £89 55., costs £4 14"s. 'Gd.; 'Richard' Brown and Son v. Everitt'.Coloi'idgo Farr,■;£6 16s. 9d., costs £1 3s. 6d.; Smithand Smith, Ltd. v. Thomas Adamson,' £3-145.-6 d., =costs 10s.; Magnus Sandcrsom and: Co.; Ltd. v.. Hugh Swann, £25 ,10s:; costs £2 14s. ;■ Margaret W. Powley v. Wm. C. Aubrey, £11 55., costs *;1 10s. 6d:; ; Archibald Kcir v., Frank Miller, £2 155., costs ;12s. . " .'

' JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. Ju the. judgment summons caso Andrew Sellai v. John Hughes Brown, defendant was ordered to pay a debt, of £3 forthwith, in default three days' imprisonment, warrant to bo suspended so long as ss. por week is paid off the amount; ', ''_ ... : • No orders woro made in the cases C. A. Wilton v. E.'Legge, a debt of £7 lis. lOd.; and Wm. Reynolds Scholefield v. Jean Mat.thewson, :a-debt of.-£2.

' '-"(Bofore Dr. K. -'M'Arthur, S.M.) A LEASE AND GOODWILL. ' James M'Mahon (Mr. Young) sued Jesse Coulson (Mr. Wilford). for £75, balance alleged to be duo on the purchase by defendant of the lease "»and goodwill of a refreshment room and ...small farm-of four acreß at the Taita;- For the. defenco Mr. Wilford stated it would be shown that the contract had been brought about through alleged misrepresentation "of-the.amount" of business done at the refreshment room. After a partial hearing, the Case was adjourned until Friday noxt. HIRE OF A SEWING MACHINE. H. Oscar Hewett and Co., Ltd., sued George, Carter for £4 Is., six months' hire of a sewing machine. Evidence showed that the machine had been hired to the defendant's wife shortly beforo her marriage to doferdant. Only one month's instalment had been paid on the machine, which, according to defendant, did riot suit. v His Worship-held that if tho machine did riot suit defendant, ho should havo returned ,it at once. " Judgment would.be for plaintiffs for tho amount claimed, and costs £1 12s. Mr. O'Leary appeared for plaintiff.

CLAIM FOR MONEY LENT. ' Richard Barber sued 'Mrs. Frank Gomez for £1, !monoy alleged-to havo been lent. Plaintiff was non-suited .on the ground that the transaction was between plaintiff's wifo and defendaut. Mr. Ayson appeared for defendant. ... A CARPENTER'S WAGES. Harold Daniel King, barpenter (Mr. Hindmarsh), sued Barr and Shaw, carpenters (Mr. O'Leary), for £1 7s. Id. Defendants ongaged plaintiff to go to Awahuri to do certain carpentering work for them, and after employing him for a week paid him off. The point at issue was whether, under the Arbitration Court award "of 1906, plaintiff was entitled to a payment of an extra _ls. tier day. for.:''country work." Plaintiff also

claimed the award allowances, for travelling expenses and for tho wages for tho time spent in travelling. . After hearing .tho evidence for plaintiff Mr. O'Leary remarked that it was of no liso going any further with tho case. Not knowing that t.lioro was a later award he had intended .-relying for his defence on tho 1903 award. , ■ Under tho circumstances His Worship entered judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed, and costs Bs.

WAGES AND OVERTIME. Arthur Brav, driver, claimed £32 19s. 3d. from T. P. Lyons and Co., carriage proprietors. Plaintiff was .employed by tho defendant company as n, driver of a luggage van used in connection with the Grand Hotel from February 1, 1908, to April 16, 1908. Tho statement of claim set out that plaintiff .'was j)aid £2 ss. per week, except between April 11 and April 16, when he received no wages. During tho time plaintiff was employed by defendants ho alleged that be worked from 68 up to 86 hours per week, whereas tho Drivers' Award provided for a 47 V hour week, exclusive of time necessary for attendance on horses. Plaintiff claimed that he-worked 379 hours overtime on week days and 50£ hours on Sundays. Under the award, overtime is allowed at the ordinary rate for tho first two hours beyond the 47£ hours, and at the rato of one-third per hour afterwards.' Payment for work on Sundays under the award is prescribed at the-rate.of 2s. per hour in addition to tlio weekly wage. Plaintiff; therefore, claimed the week's wages from April 10 to April .16, £2 os.,'the week's wages in lieu of notice, £2 55.; twenty-two hours' overtime on week days at' Is. per hour, £1 2s. ; 357 hours' overtime oh week days at Is. 3d. per hour, £22 6s; 3d.; 50£ hours' overtime on Sundays at 2s. per hour, £5 Is. Plaintiff detailed the work he was called upon to perform, attending ships and trains, doing odd trips on other hotel business; and working at tho stable. Ho had no regular Juncli hour, and sometimes Iliad to go right on without any-, thing tov eat.; Witness had to take luggage to the South; boat at night, and had to meet night' boat's arriving with ' passengers for the hotel. He also had to work on Sundays, and .received no payment for overtimo or Sunday'work. Evidence was given for the defonce that Bray's' duties consisted of taking luggage to and from tho steamers and trains arriving and leaving," and doing any odd-jobs in tho way of cartage.- A smart capable man, according to- one witness, ought to do this work in- eight hours a day for six days a week,, and two hours on Sunday: t ' ■ .At five o'clock the case was adjourned until this'morning. Mr. O'Leary appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Blair, for defendant.

CLAIM FOR WAGES. (Before Mr. W. G. .Riddell, S.M.) The hearing of evidence in tho case, John Watt, engineer, .v. the Radium Gas Syndicate, adjourned from Tuesday last, a claim for £27 ss. 6d.. wages alleged to ,be duo to plaintiff, was concluded after another long sitting. His Worship reserved his decision. Mr. Meredith appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr. Lovvey for defendants. RESERVED JUDGMENT. Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M., gave his reserved decision in the case, Francis Loudon (Mr. Fair) v.. Georgo Johnston (Mr. Cook), a claim for £79 9s. 6d. The principal items of the claim'were a promissory noto for £50 and cash advanced £26, tho balance being made up-'of. interest.' His AVorship called attention to tho fact that the interest claimed Vin cash advanced was wrongly calculated. It was put down at £2 12s. 6d., whereas it should be about ISs., thus, reducing the claim to £77 15s. The first item in the. statement of claim was a promissory noto signed bv defendant in favour of plaintiff for £50. Defendant, while not absolutely denying . the . signature as being dis, throw serious doubt upon .it, stating that he did not remember signing tho promissory note. His Worship was sure, on comparing the -signaturo on the promissory noto with two signatures made in Court,-and' from the' naturo of defendant's evidence on the point,: that tho signaturo was defendant's. In His AVorsliip's opinion defendant -failed to show that' the promissory noto was obtained from' him by fraud. As to. the three items of cash advanced and tho interest thereon, plaintiff's story was that ho advanced these sums to defendant to pay his travelling expenses in going to Rotorua.; .' He declared tbat he did not send defendant to Rotorua, but that defendant -had a buyer for cer-' tain land, and ' wanted plaintiff to .advance him tho money-to go to that district. Plaintiff denied ever having agreed to give defendant £80 in any event to go there. According to defendant,,he was to go to Rotorua and stay there so long as ho liked to try to get . a buyer, and tho plaintiff was to remit ■ him £80 by • instalments if rhe remained four, or five weeks. Plaintiff, lie said, gave him - £15 the morning Jfo went up, remitted him £10 while at Rotorua, and pave \him: a further pound on his return. Tho Rotorua trip took place in December, and the-.defendant and one Dawson, had purchased the land from plaintiff as far back as .August. In the direct conflipt between' tho ..parties; His' Worship, said ho was forced to rely Upon the stato of affairs between them at',, the' time of the Rotorua incident. At that time defendant and Dawson were; the owners of the property, and the Court. could hardly believe that one'of. the owners was to'receive £80 as a gift . in. order to"help-him to sell his own land. Such being his opinion, His AVorship considered that. the sums given to defendant by plaintiff were ill the nature of cash advances. Judgment would be for plaintiff for £77 155., and costs £7 135,.