MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 947, 14 October 1910, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

■,:(Before ;MrJ'^.t,E. : ;Harejden;;S.il.) ■. i. 'The -Inspector of Awards '(Mr.. C.' : E. Aldridge),; 'yesterday.; ■: proceeded., against several; .defendants' for•• breaches.- .Fines i vero, ! innictM,V'in : all'jcases. '.';.; • | ; /The.Gear;, llcat .'Preserving- and'' Freezing, Company;, Ltd.,".were sued 'for a \£lo penalty -fori a. breach .of 'the "Butchers^ vAward; : in,';that .they■: did,von'- or. about ; ;.W 11; 1910,: engage, a' nonrunionist, when thcre. ;; .were'V.competeht''nicinbers of the' linionfavailable.' .Mr. Grcnfell (Employers' Association) stated that'.the company'had. omployeu -the man to .take;charge of, the .small-,goods department;;, because'., they I considered, him .■ a. superior .'tradesman toany;other man available, to -fill; tho/posiH9 11 ' ::M the ' time of : the ; appointment the.;question.' as ; to >.he- was a ineinber,.of ~tho' union; did' 'not but vhe, company,-■ induced him., to,-join'the iunion-as-sqon as:it;. : .was understdbd ; 'that she. was: a...non-unionist.' The company ;made., it;->,:'■ general.'.practice:- when they, employed a man to get: him to. join'the; union" if :h'e-.-mas' hot 'aYreadyMa'member. fin.; this, case. the - v ;man employed had a very .long: experience: in small goods, ■ and '.was, in'the 'company's"opinion, a superior man_.-toi;'aiiy !^immbeT,; of the union.' Against this, contention, the ■' Inspector of Airards; arffiied. that- several, members :oi ■the ..union, Available were, equally :com-' petent ;withvthe man ; employed. The Magistrate, held.:that/a line must, be imppSed'.;-, If .any one-could .employ'a nbhunionjst/sjmpiy; '.because;'i.o'ne. was ; 'of ' opinion Hhat the h6h-u'ni6hist '■ was .-•' more competent. than : the '.unionist, it' would mean destruction to'the. prefereuce clause, lhe- real ;test : . as jtbr whether employers ;w.ere_'. : acting-bona, fide:in such -'cases was when;they: insisted; on the employee joining the'.union.l immediately. .:■, A penalty .of ;<£l<; was; imposed, . with . witness's expense's. 10s: .;';::■;';■ ' : .' .■'■':':': 1 '•■';' '■'." ■;";■■ •■ :■■■•

'\V. Ji'Hart;for whom \Mt; Aj.H: Hindmarsh, ■appeared,. ;was sued:~f or ■'. a ..£IQ penalty.' for' .breach::; of ;tke' Butchers' .'Award,:iih,that hedid, during the'.months ofr May." and. June,.: 1910, .employ, a hoy 19,-.'ycars 'of age,and failed to • pay 1 ' the said,'.hoy'r the' minimum:! wage . fixed' by .;th6Yaward r .V.:Mr. Hihdmarsh stared that .the defendant ; had; paid-, the hack ■ wages as' ; soon as!the-matter/was• explained to him.';"A iine of: 10s.. was imposed. ■ > •; Augustus Trethowan, '.-'of - Wadestownj■was sued.for. a penalty for- a breach of. the Wellington''; Operative ■ Butchers' Award, 1 in that, .On September ' 17, ho' did -.employ ,a boy named -William Trilford to- assist; him' 1 ,in 'delivering: meat .from his-cart.. -Mr;, V; Meredith appeared for defendant; , and. explained'■': that boy was>,not actually land: paid, but. simpjy.went'Tound on Saturday morn,ing for-.airide. ';A penalty of £1 -was im-, posed.:-..;'-■' ■-.-: ,-:■■: .;,- ■,:■■ :..■'. .;'•. •;■,•;••■■ -;.: !■■: l''or: : a".'similar, breach .of;'■ ,the' Butchers' •Award, .James:. .Wilton,' 1 journeyman butcher, .-was fined 10s. l ,' -..;..: ; 'J.; W.-Basson and G0.,, Ltd., building -contractors, Kilbirnie,' were sued for a .riio;penalty/for.a breach of the Wellington Building Trades' Labourers' Award in that the defendants did'engage a non-.-.unionist, labourer .'when there were com-petent-members :of the union-available. [:His Worship imposed a penalty,of .£1.,; Luko; and Cooper,:'. Martin. Streot; were sued': for : a ■£5 penalty:-for : a' breach::of the Wellington Carpenters' and - Joiners' Award,, in' that they did, on or.about i.April•: 19, engage a-'non-unionist, arid : did [■fail; to:,give 'notice to .the .Inspector .of , factories' of .'the engagement'thereof. -A penalty; of iSI was imposed. 1 . i A-£lO penalty was 'claimed from D. L.' O Donnell, Kilbirnie, -for breach of the i Carpenters' and. Joiners' Award, in failing to provide a grindstone at either his workshop or in the: job where'more than two workmen aTe employed. Defendant explained to.: the . Magistrate that . the .grindstone,-was on the'ground, but was not set up. -He was lined ss. '■'•-" •

:-A penalty of ,£5 was claimed from Charles Bethel for a. breach', of the Carpenters and Joiners' Award, in engaging a'non-unionist; and failing to give notice to the .Inspector of Factories of the'engagement thereof. _ Mr. C.' E. Dix appeared for defendant. A fine of was imposed;- ■ l , : ■•■/.-

- v-A penalty of \£2 was claimed from Gar,'net Frederick Norton, Ngaio, for breach of the carpenters' and joiners' award in that-he did, during the months of March, April, and, May, 1910, work as a carpenter for W. H. Nimnio on a job at Rona .Bay and did. fail 'to claim travelling 'tirao going to and from, such place of employment. A fine was imposed. In connection with the case against Norton, W. H. Nimmo admitted a breach in failing to pay Norton-. travelling time in accordance -with the award. His Worship imposed a penalty of £1. .: Thomas. Bell, baker, of Revans. Street, admitted a breach of. the bakers', award in employing a non-unionist when, there were competent members of the union' available. ;, Mr. T. M. Wilford, on behalf of defondant, stated that, although there were members of.the union available at the. time, nono of them were, considered suitable by.his client, who: engaged, the non-unionist, and, latere got him to join the union. A fine of 10s. was, imposed, with witnesses' expenses 10s.

LAND AGENTS' COMMISSION. W. H. Turnbull and Co.,' land' agents, Wellington, claimed iCI3 ss. from J. Kimmins, boat-builder, Wellington, for commission alleged to be due to tho plaintiffs by defendant in connection with tho sale of a section of land at Hataitai. Mr. H. F. Johnston appeared for plaintiffs, .and Mr. Blair for the defendant.

For plaintiffs it was contended that the section had been placed in their, hands for sale by defendant. Plaintiffs introduced Mr. Lindberg to defendant, and Mr. Lind-' borg ultimately purchased the' property. Plaintiffs therefore claimed commission. . For the defence it was contended that a verbal arrangement had . been : made whereby plaintiffs were to receive com.missibn only when they produced a buyer and the necessary money. This,.it was contended, had p n'ot. been done, and defendant claimed to- have completed the sale'himself. • ■■ .• ■■ : : The magistrate held that plaintiffs wero directly responsible for, the salo, and judgment was accordingly given- for plain-tiff-for-the amount- claimed, and costs totalling ,£3..;. : -'•

■''..:. PLAINTIFF NON-SUITED. Beatrice Ivy Brown sued Edwin Walter Woodhousefor >£19.105. for wages alleged to be owing to plaintiff by defendant. Mr. C. E. Dix appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. F. Pethericlc for defendant. "Without the defence being called on, plaintiff was non-suited without costs. ' ' ' ■•.■'•. .UNDEFENDED CASES.,'. : . ' Judgment by default was given for plaintiff in the following undefended cases:— Wallace and. Gibson :v. Patrick- W. Gough,'.iß2,2s. 10d., posts 10s.; the Com-, mercial Agency Company,. Ltd.,; Assignee,Bing, Harris, and C 0.,, assignor, v. M. C. Lawson, 17s. 6d.j Kirtcaldie and' Stains, Ltd., v. Fraser and Son, £19 Is.'2d„ costs £1 10s. 1 ,6 d..; Isabella Marsin Mortimer.Baker v. George Godfrey Martin, £5, cbsts G. Wholesale Manufacturing!, C 0.,. Ltd., vfW.Broom.iiJ3 105., ; costs 10s.; Thompson Bros. v. D. J. 2s. Bd., costs £1 3s. 6d.; P.'E. Eussell and Co. v. Wilfred. G. Caird, £> 10s. 3d.,' costs ..£1 ■ 19s. 6d.; G. H. Colegroyev. J.' D. Vallentine, £3 lis. Bd., costs 10s.; J. B. Clarksonand Co., Ltd., v. ,W. J. Harvey, .£l2 is. 4d., costs 155.; Kilbirnie Estate Co., Ltd., v. Robert Finlay Mackay, £161' 7s. U., costs ; £7.los.:6d.-,; ,r: , .'■;, .■:.- ;'■ '■'■■■ JUDGMENT' SUMMONSES. - ]■':■, •H. Andrews.was ordered to pay £s:ls.' to David Morris Owens on or' before October 27,; in'default "5-- days', imprisonment. -■■.-■' \;:"'.;-".\:'''pOLICE--,fcASES/ r; '^Before-Mr. W. G. Eidd'eJl,;S,M.) '~■ ■ /: :: /'- REMANDS'' GEA;NTED /; 'r; ; ; ,.'. , James Crimmins, Charles Cunningham, Charles and John Lewis appeared: on ;; r'em'and' to answer; n'. ; onarge,-that : :on October 3 they did break' and; enter the dwellmguouse of Mary;Spencer,:.in..Cam-, bfidgo, Terrace, and - steal; therefrom; one; rolled; gold -watch, .one. gold .chain,: one silver inatciibos,'one shark's tootn, and-9s„ 6d. : in'silver, total value £17.;45.: 3d.,"the property of Thomas Davidson., On the application of■■ Chief-Detective;...Broberg,. the four accused .were -further remanded, till.-, October; 19, >when,yit-.:was intimated, a further charge will bB preferred against them;:/';'"''" , ':'""':;'■''■:',.!•'':■■■'.•,''■:■''''■ - ■-•- . Appearing, on: remand, Thomas Duffy■ was charged- with-: obtaining .goods:.valuedat £70. : by.mean- of false-pretences. :,Hs' was further remanded until, nest Tuesday, ! afternoon'::', Mr. : :A. ; "Dunn ; appearedv;.'for i accused,'\whc was''admitted to: bail iin I' the' same" sureties.; as: preyipuslyi.';";'. . ; .;' -X ;,;■'ALLEGED '^AM&:S' v;V : r f ''' '.William 'Watkins, on,. remandi ...was bharged with .commiUihgrbignrny .'and with; making, for. the purpose of-being inserted ,in- the' marriage' :registei 4 - : bbok; ,';a' false statement;, to'wit;' tltat,Jon"-:Septemberl9 .he was; a- ; -baonelor.' .ChiefrDetective■ Broberg applied, for a further remand until October, 19.; This was.granted..";

':. Florence; K'Anrially pleadpd;gviilty to;a charge.of being a;rogue and:a,.vagabond,: and■ elected to J be"dealt, with/' summarily. She'.was sentenced to six- months',;.impris-' 'onm'eht;.'.'■:"■,.;'.;:,. ; ; "'.''|!i:",- 1 -. Vr■■■"■■ ■ : ,:''-.'.' . '-',!;■ ■ Thomas Lepper, oharged with' being an idle and disorderly, person; without 'lawfill visible means of support,:.'."pleaded ! not guilty..; The police' evidence was to: the .effect;'that'.-the, man had; been lout of.pri,son,only, four' days 'when' arrested, : ,\, He .had'been sleeping but at.nights, and com 7 plaints, had been made',about fiini/wandering ..about in-different .parts „of. Thorndon.. Accused stated.in defence that.he had not bad' sufficient; time to .obtain; employment.;, His \Worship,, convicted r accused, and .ordered him', to".come,.up for'sehtence when called, upon. ' .'.-A '■'• ■■:■. V other cases.' ' : ; ; ; • ;. Violet-Paton, who had been remanded ona oharge'i.'of-Ldrunkenness;.."said„that inquiries might be. made.to; see. ; if' ber,relatives -would;;ta!se., charge yi.of-,,her,'', was br'ought;,.forward. : for/ . Sub-In-, spector Norwood reported,that the'.'.woman' had refused■( to.-'.giye. her moth; er's address,; and in conseguencethe. police were unable to prosecute their inquiries. The Magistrate-imposed'a sentenco of one month's, imprisonment.; ■'■ -"..'■ !."'■' ■~-■' ■ .Elizabeth Buokmaster.pleaded guilty to a charge of drunkenness and to a further charge of breach "of ,a prohibition .order-. ■She. stated her;! willingness to .enter the •Samaritan. Home at. Ghri'stchuich if given a chance.:.-. She,"was/remanded:'till, this morningifpiv:.sentence,;;so,;thai inquiries; might 'be: made as to whether; or' not; the Samaritan; Home authorities would ta&e-; her in. ; Sarah Flower, : for drunkenness, was ':■ fined; 10s., in. default forty-eight hours'..imiirisonmenti-"";'; .;,'/' *'.;';;; "- , Three , first-offending.'inebriates, .were fined . 55., iin default twenty-four hours'. im'prisonm'entj.;a'nd, another.' first offender; who did, not; appeal", was ordered to forfeit his bail of.10s:';. .'..'■,.:■ ■•/., ■ ■ •