MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 237, 30 June 1908, Page 4

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

'POLICE CASES. (Bofore Mr. ,W. 6, Riddell, S.M., yesterday.) DRUNKENNESS. A first offending inebriate was convicted and discharged. Two first offenders were each fined 55., in default 24 hours' imprisonment, and two, who did not appear, were each fined 105.,' in default' 48 hours' imprisonment. '' MISCELLANEOUS. An old man named Thomas Boynn, who was trembling nervously, as he entered tho dock,!, pleaded not guilty to a charge of being an idle and disorderly person. Constable Carmody'.stated-that accusod had had' a 'fit," and he was sleeping in a tramshed at Oriental Bay. "My family supports mo," said accused, "and I 1 never had a fit in mv lifo. I contradict the evidence." Ho stated that bo received '£2 from his son. . The accused was discharged. ■ . • > A volublo young woman, . named Annie Moore,pleaded notgnilty to charges of using obscene, language in Ingestro-Street and of beiDg an idle,and disorderly .'person, • "r On the first charge she was fined .£3, in .dofault 21 days' imprisonment.-: A rejnaad jm->.

til next morning' wag'" gitinted.' to allow investigations to bo hiade._ Charges of driving S"motor-car in Thorndon without a, light and'negligently driving a motor-car'" wbnr-prefcrred against Oswald Johnston. Defendant was represented by Mr. Johnston./--.On-'.tlip first chargo ho was fined 40s;, and £1 Is. costs, and on tho second ho was'ordorod to pay Court-costs, lis. ' .' .

For boarding n.: train nt Petono whilst in motion, Sydnoy J)cmpsey was fiped 10s., with costs 7s;, hours' imprisonment. • ;Upqn,a horse to wan9, Patrick Gallagher?.was fined-itis., with costs 75., in default 24 hours' imprisonment. iWilliam"Npwma'il" was' fined 10s'., with costs Ts.,' in default' 24' hours' " imprisonment, for leaving a vohielo unattended in Riddiford allowed for pay- - A firoman, represented by Mr. Kirkcaldie, appoarod' to answer >»'chargo of stealing a quart of milk, valued'at 4d., "the proporty of John w.as also an' 1 information ofj, attempting r to t stoal a quantity of milk, on ~Jnne-§& --Evidence was given by Whrte!nari,'.''.whoi'stat<sd that he saw accused in a. van with a bottlo in his hand. The accused, stated, that he entered the van to seo whether a can was upset. The information was dismissed. < •

■An application for a summary separation ordor was brought by .Mary Ann Thew against Hugh Beatrty Thew;' 'After hearing tho evidence,, ; liig. .Worship,. dismissed tho application.'" ' '

John Walsh was proceeded against for the maintenance of an ipegitimato child. Mr. Jackson, counsel for the defence, dccided not to call .tho'. defendant,' who was ordered to pontribnto 63. por . week,'and to pay Court costs £8 Bs. Ho was also ordered to find a bond of £50, and one surety of £50, or two pfi £25' for duo. compliance, in default, threo months''imprisonment, .Seven days were allowed him'.to find the security.

CIVIL BUSINESS. . RESERVED JUDGMENTS. -•The four following judgments were delivered by Dr. M'Arthur, S.M., yesterday morning:— ."' A SLAUGHTERING CLAIM. : .STOCK-INSPECTORS' POWERS. Tho Hutt County Council laid an information against 'William J. Howell for slaughtering ,/stq<d^for.;hp]riap, on: premises' riot' registered "as"' a slaughtering house asl provided Tin Scction tW :of the Slaughtering , and Inspection Act, 1900. The Magistrate pointed out that Section 3 provided that it was not unlawful for a bona fide farmer, whose ordinary operations included tho raising and fattening of stock on his farm, to slaughter"Btock,'.pro'vided that tho stock slaughto.fcid'wore not'sold to a butcher. -It was contended",by 'defendant, that ho was a partner' in J a : fanning concern; and that they aid not sell to a butcher but to themselves. Tho facts disclosed that-defendant was ono of :a family, who jointly, parried on two businesses, a.nd that' as"' farmers they sold to themselves as This, in his Worship's opinion, was' contrary to'<the spirit of •the 1 Act as well as tho letter. The amount of stock slaughtered- 'was' in excess of ono head of cattle and fivo head of other stock por wcok, 'contrary to Subsection 2 of. Section 3. A letter was put in signed "A. Mills"., .giving defendant permission, to slaugh'ter four head of'large cattle per week in iexcoss ; of T the number allowed by tho Act. Thero was no indication as to who A. Mills was, but-the Magistrate' assumed that ho was a duly appointed inspector ,of stocky ' A bona fido farmer, whoso /ordinary farming operations included':;tho raising, and fattening of stock, might slaughter stock 011 his farm for. sale. He must riot,. however, unless specially, authorised ~by an inspector, of Etock, slaughter more than one head of cattle j and 'five head'of otlior stock. Again, hn "lost the; aboVe-nientionvd'privilege, if ho sold '.to ; a butcher. Ho - considered the inspector's authority'..contrary., .to ] tho •. provisions of tho Act. T]ie"Adt''SlloVfed; pno'liead of cattlo to bei slaughtered in any; week,;whereas the authority purported to 1 allow, fiv,o head of largo cattlo to bo slaughtered por week. In this manner the inspector l might ovorrido the statute to. tho extent of allowing 400 per cent, moro'cattlo' to bo slaughtered each woek, not on ono occasion, but as a general .authority. He-was ,surp. that this was nover contemplated by tßo ; framors'of the" statnto, which did notigivo any!such iauthority. The' inspector's ; 'authbrity' ,: .wdsr ultra "vires even wero defendant not selling -to a butchor. Ho Jield that defendant i:couid not lawfully slaughter, any stock- for' human consumption expept in a registered slaughtor-ho.usq;

The information "'must'"be sustained, 'and defendant would be fined 405., and costs £4 9s. '

" 1 Mr, Johnston appearecLfor •: plaintiff and .Mrj, Hadfield for defendant. .■ '! "' IANDLOED"AJifD TENANT.

•; B. Hall (Mr. ,: Blairj;[siied- J. L. Erigel (Mr. iVoii H[iast)j.for.£lßri&S'Bd. The case.was ran)a<rtipu,^^£ : »'3ai^l'oS , d ! '.and : 'a tenant; ; 'Under v of?;,:ftgr&mpnt • between , the jinto occiipa•tion. of' certam':'pißmi,Be^: : belonging to the ■plaintiff oir&pm f l?'i9o6; and vacated tho premises on February 16, 1908; At the time of ;vacating there was. owing to | the rplamtiffi' fori rent ' sum of 1 £48 16s\-Sd/. [.was, admitted. . ' n. It 'had. beefi'pYovided' under the agreement that the defendant was to keep tho premises in ;ajgood, : 'thqrpughj.:and efficient state of : rop'aii', and' it was alleged that tho defendant 'committed' several, breaches in this part of' Jis; agreem"ont' in'"rcyer'encb to tho walls and wallpapers;" the wilidowsy and tho fencing. For tins a.sum.of £15;10s. was claimed. Tho deferfdant had, .in. his,. Worship's opinion, failed to keep the premises in that stato of repair covenanted' for by tho' deed, but at 'tho romo-timo> ho-thought his breachos had riot been : so serious' as stated by tho plain-' tiff. Ho thought that the sum of £5 would Jioja fair amount to allow tho plaintiff undoi this head."'"""' ij'Thi defendant also undertook to keep tho livo stock and-chattels in'good condition and in good repair,, and, at the determination of tho leaso to deliver then), up in good condition;] For broaches "hereof 'tho plaintiff claimed for plant and tools lost, £5; for four, ihcad of stocklimfssing, £20, but reduced to £6; and for poultry missing £5. In;his Worship!^opinion £4 was a fair amount forcattlo missing, and £2 for tools arid poultry , missing. ? The provided that tho defendant;; should -'at \soirib time during tho continuance of the term granted purchaso tho' interest of i'the'.lessor in tho .premises and tho livo stock and, chattels. The defondaat failed' : to complete tho purchase within tlio' time - specified, and tho plaintiff alleged that ho had suffered damage. For' this his Worship was-prepared to allow £20.= -■' Judgment... wns—thorcforo given for tho plaintiff for £79 16s Bd., with costs. '

COMPANY PROMOTING. '■'Albert ;Sydiiey TVa'tsoii. (Mr. Blair)' sued Thomas Pago' and others . (Sir. Lovvey), and Stewart-(Mr; Toogoodj. -Tho plaintiff stated that on February 13, IQOB, the defendants-'engaged tho plaintiff to float a company, to, bo called tho Radium Cas Company, Limited, and to have its head office in Wellington..; The defendants guaranteed in .writing'that in tho event of tho company not being floated they wortild pay tho plaintiff £100 for out-of-pocket expenses in connection with flotation, consisting of advertising, brokerage,, legal, or other expenses. f Tho" plaintiff used his best endeavours to float such company, and expended considerable timo and money in so doing, but' had failed'to float tho company; Tho plaintiff, therefore, claimed from tho defendants tho sum of £100. *

! Tho defendants, said his' Worship, wore members of , what now-a-days is dignified by the namo of a syndicates, and thoy had been desirous of floating a company, to bo called the Radium Gas": Company. To aocomplish that object thoy engaged tho plaintiff under an agrocmont, signed by Thomas Pago and William P. Rough, on. behalf of tho syndicate.': All tho'-merabers of the syndicate, except Stewart, ;>werp;- willinc to admit tho claim. ' Stewart .contended that the plaintiff was entitled to-receive only out-of-pocket oxpensos incurred, such expenses not to exceed £100. This, his Worship took to be tlie meaning of the agreemont, and said thai the' only to such sura as should cover his out-of-pocket expenses. Ho:bad brought at) .evidence jwmerjwijg Ibis

in which the Court could decide, so that the plaintiff must, therefore, bo non-suited with costs.

WRONGFUL DISMISSAL. W. G. Ta.vlor (Mr. Johnston) proceeded ngainst tho New Zealand Fruit and Produco Company (Mr. Hordman), to rccovor £187 12s. It-was'claimed that tho plaintiff was tho hired servant of tho defendant Company at tho salary of £250 per annum, and that tho plaintiff was wrongfully dismissed during tho currcit' year of liis servicos. Tlio dofondant maintained that plaintiff agreed to take shares in tho Company, but this was denied. The Magistrate said: "In my opinion tho plaintiff was wrongfully dismissed, as ia evident on the correspondence and minutes. The estate in which plaintiff is interested has not yet been realised,'. and, moreoror, no guarantee was required by him to tako the sharos."

Judgment was given for plaintiff for tho full amount, and costs £13 Bs.