MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1030, 20 January 1911, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Dr. A. M'Artlnir, S.M.) A GAME OF HAZARDS. . Jamos Rogers was with pinylllJ> 'hazards" with dice, on January 18, ut tho breastwork, Queen's "Wharf. Accused did not appoar, but sent in a written admission of his guilt. Sub-Inspector .Norwood stated that the man was charged under tho Gaining Act, and was liable to a penalty of .£SO, or three months' imprisonment. Had he been charged under tho Volice Offences Act, lie would have boon liable to bo rentpneed to twelve months'imprisonment, without the option of a fine. Accused was one of a party of men who had been watched by police' constables on Tuesday afternoon for about an hour. They were playing hazards, and were subsequently raided, taken to the police station, and served with summonses. The Magistrate imposed a fine of £3, with costs 75.,'. in default 14 days' imprisonment. OTHER CASES. .Tohn M'Kny, against whom there were 28 previous convictions, was sentenced to month's imprisonment for drunkenness. Edward Waters; for drunkenness, was fined 205., in default seven days' imprisonment, and, for the same offence, John M'Eachern was penalised to the same extent. Carrie Corbett, Henry Turner, and a first offender, were each convicted and discharged for drunkenness. A. charge against Henry Turner, of wilfully damaging a pane of glass, valued at: £1, was withdrawn by leave of the Court, as Sub-Inspector Xorwood stated that the affair was accidental, and that Turner had offered to pay for the damage. ' CIVIL BUSINESS. BREACH OF, AWARD. The Inspector of Awards sued William J. Holmes for a vCIO penalty for a breach of the preference clause of the Wellington Building Trades Labourers' Award. After hearing the evidence, the Magistrate imposed a fine of £\. - ■ CASE DISMISSED. James Creighton, builder-, of ICilbirnie, was sued, by the Inspector of Awards, for a..£10 penalty for a breach of the preference clause .of tho Wellington Building Trades' Labourers' Award. Mr. A. R. Atkinson appeared for defendant. The evidence for tho prosecutor .was to the effect that defendant had employed a bricklayer on the work of excavating at the side of a house for a portion of one day. This man was not a memr l>sr.of tho Labourers' Union, and, at the lime, there were several competent unionl'sts available. Defendant stated that while the bricklayer in question was building a chimney some of the bricks were disallowed by the architect, as beiug soft, and, while they were procuring a load of suitable bricks, the bricklayer was employed. for two hours on a little excavating. Several authorities were quoted for the defence, with a view to. showing that no breach Had been committed. The Magistrate stated that he was perfectly satisfied (hat no breach of the award had been committed, and the ease was dismissed. UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment by default was given for plaintiff in tho following undefended cases:— M. Moore y. Nellie Darby. £\ 17s. 3d., costs 55.; Samuel Salek v. Herbert Francis, .£6l lis. 5d., costs .£1 os. fid.; Ellison and Co. v. James Hamilton, «£l, costs 55.-; George and Kersley, Ltd., v. Henry Matthew Stowell, ill lis. Bd., costs.<£l 12sGd.; The Commercial Agency, Ltd., v! •Bromley Hill, £107-2s. 3d., costs «£5 13s. Gd. 5 The Palmer Engineering Co., Ltd., v. Robert. Donn and Sons. «£6 10s. Gd., costs 3s. Gd.; fame..v.. At. A. Andrews. •.£l3 lis. 7d„, costs X'l 10s. Gd.; H. Price and Co., Ltd., v. C. Froggatt, trading as the Greymouth Framing Co., «£3 Bs. 4d., ; costs : 10s;-j-C. Smith, Ltd., v. Frank Roberts, 7s. fld.,. costs 10s.; Duncan and Macintosh v. James Watson, «B.V 9s. Id., costs rCI 4s. Gd.; J. Myers and Co. v. S. B. M'Donald, <£4 lis. 8d.,-costs 135.; Tho Palmer Engineering Company, Ltd., v. A. F. Burns, costs lis.; ''The New Zealand Times" Company, 'Ltd., v. E. Lee, «£7, costs £1 3s. fid:; Vacuum Oil Company Proprietary, Ltd., v. Harris and Watts, costs 75.; John Murray v. Samuel Gcodc «£5 35., costs <£1 7s. Gd. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. C. H. J. Anderson was. ordered to pay ,£2 ss. to Daniel O'Connor on or before February. 2, in default seven days' imprisonment. In the caso of E. C. Smith v. John B. Stephenson, a claim for £3 10s., defendant was ordered to pay the amount on or before February 2, in default to undergo seven days' imprisonment. No order was made in the case of the Wellington Loan Company, Lid., v. Herbert J. Baker, a claim for .£65 lGs. sd.