MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 455, 13 March 1909, Page 14

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) ARRESTING A PRISONER. SUGGESTION OF ROUGH USAGE. A somewhat unusual request was made by Inspector Ellison when a middle-aged man, named Wm. Henry Whiteside, was charged with insobriety, and with resisting Constable Fleming, whilst he was in the execution of his duty. Accused pleaded guilty, but Inspector Ellison asked that evidence "should bo called as, after tho man had been arrested, two men had called on him, and made a complaint about the alleged rough way the constable had, quito unnecessarily, used the man. Giles Bradley, labourer, stated that he saw tho accused standing outside the Pier Hotel on Thursday evening. Tho man was in a drunken condition, and tho constable went up to him and told him to move on. When the man would not move, the constable arrested him. Prisoner threw himself on the ground, and caught tho constablo by the legs, bringing him to his knees. " Tho constablo did not ill-treat the man in any way. Wm. Sellars gave similar evidenco, saying that accused threw himself on tho ground three times, and resisted the constable, who did not, in the opinion of witness, use more force than was necessary. Wm. P. Chivers and George Hart both gave evidence that, in their opinion, the constable used more violence than was necessay, twisting the prisoner's arms behind his back, and throwing him face downward into an express. In reply to Inspector Ellison the witnesses said they did not know what force was required to lift a drunken man. Constable Fleming deposed that, on Thursday afternoon, ho saw accused and another drunken man, up against tho Pier Hotel, and ho warned them to get away. Accused would not go. and witness arrested him. Tho prisoner threw .himself on tho ground, and resisted and witness asked- for assistance, but none of tho people standing about would lend a hand. could not have got tho man into the pxprcss without using the force which he did use. His Worship - to accused: "Do you complain, of being ill-treated?" Accused: "Well, I feel pretty sore, but I don't remember what occurred —I was more drunk than sober." : On tho first charge a lino of ss. was entered. Referring to tho secon;} charge, his Worship said that tho evidoifco led was as to whether the constable used excessive forco. Tho weight of evidenco was against the suggestion that the constable had used excessive force, and the Court was satisfied that tho constablo did not use excessive forco. Defendant would be convicted without a penalty, as tho charge had only been gone into to ventilate tho complaint against the constable. MIDNIGHT FRACAS. A REVOLVER SHOT FIRED. . Details of a street fracas on Friday of last week wero made public, when three young men, Michael Toare, Martin Teare, and James M'Whirter, all labourers, were brought before tho Court'. Michael Tcaro and J as. M'Whirter were charged with using threatening behaviour on Tborndon Quay, whereby a breach of the peace was occasioned, and Martin Tearo was charged with using threatening behaviour in Tinakori Road with intent to provoke a breach of tho.peace. Chief Detective- Broberg conducted the caso for tho prosecution, and Mr. P. W. Jackson appeared for tho defendants. George Cloke, bootmaker, deposed that on March 5, at about midnight, ho was aroused by cries of "Help!" "Polico!" and "Murder!" and went down to the Thorndon Esplanade, whero he found the men Michael Tearo and ;M'Whirter. in tho middle of a crowd of men, tho former using bad language and challenging tbo crowd, to fight. Witness remonstrated with ono of tbo men, who said that he would hit witness. Michael Tearo then struck at witness, and ho. (witness) defended himself, and "settled Tearo." M'Whirter then attacked witness, who fell in tho excitement. When ho recovored himself the two men were on the run. Witness subsequently returned to his homo, and was having a smoke opposite tho house, when tho two Tearcs. and another man camo up, and tried to get at witness. Witness had a revolver in his pocket, and when tho men persisted in trying to get hold of him he fired a shot into the ground to frighten tbo men off and- show thorn what they had to face. After a timo Detective Cass'ells.camo.on tho scene, and tho trouble ended for the timo. L. Cloke, son of the previous witness, corroborated the evidenco given by his father, and Charles Dormer also gavo evidence. Detective Cassells, residing in Cottlevillo Terrace, stated that he was aroused at about 12.30 by a disturbance about 200 yards away from his house. Witness went to the spot and caught hold of Michael Teare in consequence of something he said to Cloke, and a number of people standing about then "caught hold of witness and tried to get Teare away from him. Teare refused to give his name and address, and witness said that he would have either Tearo or his namo. After consulting the crowd, Tearo gave his name. Mr. Jacltson submitted that there was no ovidence against Martin Teare, and that the information against him must be dismissed. ' Michael Tearo stated that he and M'Whirter wero on their way back from Kaiwarra on tho night in question, and, when passing tho Esplanado Hotel, a woman called out to a crowd of men in tho vicinity, "There are tho two fellows," referring apparently to an assault which to pave happened on the Esplanade.' Before witness and his friend knew what was happening they were attacked by the mob. They only acted in self-defence. Martin Teare was not therewhen tbo trouble commenced, but came up later. His Worship held that Michael Teare andM'Whirter must bo convicted and fined £3, and costs £1 13s. Bd., in default 14 days' imprisonment. As to Martin Teare, the information against him must be dismissed. Michael Teare also appeared on a charge of having used obscene language during tho course of the abovo altercation. Defendant pleaded not guilty, but, after hearing tho evidence, his Worship ontered a conviction and fine of £5, and costs 75., in default 14 days'; imprisonment. "• 'MAINTENANCE. A young man named-Frank Kronst was remanded to appear on March 15 oh a chargo of failing to provide for the maintenance of Ills illegitimate child. Bail was allowed in the sum of £50 and two sureties of £25 each. Mr. Moran appeared for complainant, and Mr. P. W. Jackson for defendant. . OTHER CASES. An elderly woman named Jessie M'Ewan pleaded guilty tea chargo of being an idle and disorderly person within the meaning of the Pplico Oft'ences-Act, 1908, in that she has insufficient lawful moans of supp^i. Sub-Inspector Phair stated that accused had been wandering about Courtenay Placo and Clyde Quay since she was liberated from gaol on February 4, and had done no work. Sho had 40 previous convictions against her namo, nine of which wore for vagrancy. Accused pleaded hard for a chance to get away to Christchurch, whero she had friends. His Worship: "If I let you go to Christchurch you would probably do the same as you have dono here. You will bo convicted and sentenced to threo months' imprisonment." Fiva, Brown (Mr. P. W. Jackson) laid a chargo of unlawful assault against Harvey Dunda.s, who did not appear. Informant also applied for an order that defendant should keep tho peaco towards her. A conviction and fine of 205., and costs £1 10s. wero entered, defendant boing ordered to keep the peaco for 12 months and to find security in tho sum of. £50 and two sureties of £25 each. Tho dofault was fixed at 12 months' imprisonment. A young man named Wm. Newman pleaded guilty to haying used insulting language on the Railway Wharf, and'to having unlawfully assaulted one Archie Riugrose. On the first charge a conviction and line of 10s. and costs 31s. wan entered, and on the second chargo a conviction and fine of 10s. was imposed.

Michael Hurlihy, who failed to answer his I ■ bail on Wednesday, and who was rcarrested 11 on Thursday, appeared on a chargo of stealing two watches, a chain, and a medal, valued at £1 2s. 6d., and was remanded to appear on Monday. Arthur James Hutcheson, charged with insobriety, was convicted and fined 205., in default sevon days' imprisonment. Chas. O'Ncil and Jas. Malachy Sheridan, similarly charged, wero each convicted and fined 10s., in default 48 hours' imprisonment. One first offender was fined os., and another was convicted and discharged. BY-LAW CASES. George Goodall, restaurant-keeper, was fined 10s., and costs 75., for being the occupier of premises the chimney of which was allowed to catch fire. Arthur Cole and Geo. Walker, separately charged with driving a vehicle at other than a walking pace across tho intersection of Mauners and Willis Streets, wero each fined 10s., and costs 7s. Herbert Hill, charged with being the owner of sections in Waipapa Road on which gorse had been allowed to grow so as to bo a source of danger from fire, was convicted and ordered to pay costs, City Inspector Doyle informing the Court that tho gorso had now been cleared away. Arthur Jones and Albert Keeble, fruithawkers, wero separately charged _ with carrying on business as hawkers without having iirst obtained a licenso from the City Council. N either of tho defendants appeared, and after hearing an explanation by Inspector Doyle, his Worship entered a fine of "405., and' costs 75., in default seven days' imprisonment, in each case. Thomas Campbell, and Charles 0. Platts, were each lined 10s., and costs 75., for allowing stock to wander at Karori. CIVIL BUSINESS. (Before Dr. M'Artbur, S.M.) CLAIM FOR COMMISSION. Tho' partially-heard case, John Edward Butler, Limited", v. Charles Barrow, Otaki, saddler, was resumed. This was a claim to recover tho sum of £19 commission, alleged to bo due on the sale of a saddlery business. Mr. Young appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Menteath for defendant. . The defence was that it was not the custom in the trade to make a chargo for commission when obtaining another customer to take over a retail business vacated hj an old customer. An absolute denial was given to auy' special contract having been entered into. ' His Worship said there was a direct conilict of evidence between the parties, but looking at the other circumstances, and the fact that five requests for payment had been ignored, judgment would bo given for plaintilf for amount claimed, with £1 costs. Security for appeal was fixed at £7 7s. ~ AN INDENTER'S.CLAIM. Salmond and Spraggon, indent agents, sued Frederick Win. Weidner, photographer, for £10 10s. 3d., in respect of goods sold and delivered. Mr. Von Haast appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. D. M. Findlay tor tho defendant. The claim was for money paid by plaintiffs for defendant, at his request, in connection with 2000 double-faced photo-wrappers, ordered by him from _ L. Canesi and Co., London, through plaintiffs, or, in the alternative, the sum of £10 10s. 3d. as damages for breach of contract by defendant with plaintiffs to purchase the 2000 photo-wrappers. . ■ ' Mr. Findlay said defendant's case, rested upon two points—the _ law and merit. He contended that plaintiffs had ho right to sue in their own name on tho contract. Plaintiffs had not shown that there was a universal usuago entitling indent agents to sue- on behalf of their principals. Defendant could not enter into such a contract as alleged without knowing tho exact cost of tho goods. He had asked what the cost would be, was informed that it would be somewhere about 80s. or 905., which plaintiffs now stated was meant to be tho prico per thousand. As soon ns the goods were received defendant had . refused to accept dolivery. Judgment was reserved until March 18. REPAIRS TO A HOTEL. Alexander Nicol, storekeeper, Pahautanpi, proceeded against Michael Moynihan, hotelkeepor, for tho sum of £75 12s. Plaintiff was the owner of the hotel and defendant tho licensee. The leaso, provided that defendant should keep the hotel and premises as and for' a licensed hotel and publichouse, and was also to keep tho building in a proper state, of repair. Certain repairs wero ordered by the Health' Department, and for some reason plaintiff had, at his own cost and expense, had the repairs and alterations effected, expending the sum of £75 12s. After a partial hearing tho case was sdjourncd. Mr. Toogood appeared for plaintiff and Mr. M'Grath for defendant. THE UNION COMPANY SUED. AN INTERESTING SHIPPING CASE. £1200 PER ANNUM INVOLVED. A caso of considerable interest was heard by Dr. M'Arthur, S.M., in which tho Wellington section of the Australasian Federated Seamen's Industrial Union of Workers proceeded against the Union Steam Ship Company for £10, for an alleged breach of the Arbitration Court award of April, 1908, in not paying a deck hand on tho Maori overtime for hours worked in excess of eight hours per day. Mr. W. T. Young appeared on behalf of the union, Mr. Kirby representing the , Union Company. : Mr. W. T. Young, in opening, said tho Court would be asked to decide whether a man working under the eight-hour a day system on a ship should work only eight hours a day, either at sea or in port, on six days in tho week. The man in question went to work at 6 a.m., until 8 a.m., resumed at 9, worked till 12, went to dinner at 12, resumed at 1, and concluded at 5 p.m.—nine hours a day worked, one worked before the Maori's arrival in port. It was the opinion of tho union that a day man working under tho day system was only required to work eight hours a day, and that Clauso 6 of the Seamen's Award did not apply to a day man, as he was not a "seaman on watch." Under that elauso.all of the deck hands on the Maori could bo placed on the day system. Tho same. clause provided that between 6 a.m. and 5 p.m. "a seaman" on watch should' perform any work required of him without any overtime. This, ho contended, did not apply to "day men." .If tho shipowner saw fit to work,a man under tho day system, then port rules in respect to hours of labour must apply to, him at sea. If this argument did not hold good, then thero was nothing in tho award to govern tho hours of a day man. It would be competent for a shipowner to work a man for twenty-four hours, and also competent for him to obey tho requirements of Clauso B—respectingß—respecting the hours at sea —by converting all the men into day men. _ Clauso 12 set forth tbo hours of day men in port—an eight-hour day. It did not refer to "seamen on watch," but to "seamen" disclosing a • difference between Clauses 8 and 12. Clause 20 set forth that overtime should be paid for all work done botween 5 p.m. aud 7 a.m. So far as the Act was concerned, a day man on the Maori came under the definition of "seaman." Mr. Kirby: Wo admit that, also that tho man turned out to work between 6 and 7 o'clock. Mr. Young said the- man did rigging 'screens and similar work, and as he was not a "seaman on watch" ho could claim overtime for that. If a day man could bo worked nine hours a day, then thero was nothing in tho award to prevent him being worked 24 hours, and the whole of the deck hands could be converted into day men and worked.the wholo day. Mr. Kirby, jn replying said a very serious matter was concerned so far as his company was concerned, as it affected about eighty men, and would mean an increased cost of £1200 por annum in working the vessels as at present. They relied on tho award and usuago. Day men wero recognised oiv vessels. The award provides in Clause 6 that day men could be worked "as circumstances required." When a shin was at sen no overtime was recoverable between tho hours of 6 R.n), and 5 p.m., as defined by Clauso 8 of the award,

which gavo power to work tlio men between those hours. No provision had been made to meet this position, therefore the Court must fall back on common practice. Tho harbour Forry-scrvico award here provided for a tenhour day. In tho company tho men wrro worked for nine hours on six days in tho week, and two or thrco hours on Sunday, bringing tlieir daily averago a little over eight hours. Where, then, did the hardship come, in? The contention of Mr. Young that tho men could lie turned into day hands and employed for tho whole 24 hours was absurd. Tho Maori carried five men above tho Board of Trado requirements. Tho feeling amonp,st unionists was that if they took ono man away from tho watch it increased tho work of tho others. But where did the hardship como in, seeing that only ono man was taken out of a watch as day man and there wore five employed over tho required number? Evidence was given by tho second officer of tho Maori, and W. D. Cameron, chiuf officer of tlie Arahura.