MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 263, 26 July 1918, Page 7

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

POLICE AM) CIVIL CASES

CLAIM FOR WRONGFUL

DISMISSAL

Mr. J. 0. L. Tien-ill', S.M., presided over till' police business at tho -ilagis(rate's Court yesterday. I'nlritk SiniKilt wits charged with drunkenness in I.ainbloii Quay, TCiusiug to (|iiit Iho Grcslinm Hotel when requested to (lo mi. and v.itli having wilfullv liiiiMM'-'t'd a policeman s hoimei, valued at I'.-fs. Inspictor Marsacle said (ho man had lo,t a leg at the Somme, inul perhaps His Wor.-hip would balance that as against l-lic accused's previous convict ions'. "I will giro you a ehaneo this rime," remarked Mr. Hewitt to Sinnott, "hut you have had >everal warnings. If you keep on .gomg like this v.iii will i.f i.i trouble again." Convicted and, discharged for drunkenness, accused was fined lids., in delaull seven days' imprisonment, for refusing to leave Hh' lioici, :\r.d wa* or<lon l (! in innlu* j;oou tin- damage done to tho helmet. l'ran'.-is" Gilhei'tsnn was charged with insobriety, and was made the subject ot a prohibition order.

am cases

.CIAIII FOK WAGES SUCCEEDS. Judgment for tho full amount- claimed was given by 11 r. W. G. l'iddell, S.M., 111 tho ease in which a, claim for XID Ills. iv,'is made by Bernard Brooks, a. luneinutinrnph operator. against the Crown Theatre Company, Ltd., Ileitis; a mouth's salary in lieu of notice.

Plaintiff wus i;r,gaged in February, 1916. at tlm rate of ,i's per week, a reduction being mad-* later to Xl IDs. Brooks continued in the defendant company's employ until May H lust, wlien he was suspended, and notified that ho would Ik- required to attend a. meeting of t'ue directors two days later. JJotcndauts alleged thai, plaintilf was negligent in the execution of his duties as operator, thai lie did not arrive at.'the theatre in lime to see that his machine, was in good running order, ami that Ihe stops during a performance were more frequent than »ould have jjocn the case with a competent operator. It was also alleged that a greater quantity of electricity was used than was necessary, and that the plant was left dirty and improperly adjusted, also proper caro was not. exercised over the films.

In Ihe course of his judgment. His Worship .said the defendants decided tu suspend plaintiff 011 the grounds of: (a) Unsatisfactory work amounting to incompetency and negligence on the part of the plaintiff, and (b) misconduct, in appearing at: the theatre on May 3 while under tho influence of liquor. There w-is on the part of a skilled servant an implied warranty that 110 was reasonably eempi'lent lor tile work ho undertonic, ami if he proved incompetent the employer was . not hound to continue to employ him. Acts which justified an employer in summarily dismissing an employee had been stated to J>o wilful diwhedience of a lawful and reasonable ■•rder, insulting or insubordinate conduct, incompetency or habitual neglect, and misconduct inconsistent with tho duo and faithful discharge of his duties. So far as plaint ill 's misconduct was concerned it was admitted by liiiu (liat he had two or three drinks oil one afternoon, but His Worship was of opinion that whatever liquor plaintiff had taken would not have materially interfered with his efficiency in the evening. The fact that the plaintilf had performed the same duties at the theatre for over two years. showed that he was sufficiently competent, but somewhat: indifferent. On tho whole, the faults plaintilf exhibited were sullicient to warrant defendants dismissing him after notice, but scarcely reached the point where they would be justified in dismissing him without n6liee. Judgment was entered for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs -t-'ti Rls.. At the hearing .Mr. T. Neavo appeared for the plaint ill', and Mr. A. W. Blair for the defendant. AN UNHAPPY SECOND MARRIAGE. Trouble between a husband and a wife was ventilated in .1 casu in which William Frederick Mornn, waiter, oi' Wellington, proceeded against his wife, Susan .Moran, lo recover possession of ccrtaiu articles of furniture, houso fittings, and a ring, noon which ho placed a. total value of .ill). In the alternative to recovcrv he claimed the sum of .till. Mr. 11. F. O'Lcarv appeared for plaintiff, nu(J Mr. G. G. G. Watson for defendant. From the evidence it appeared that before their marriage in 11)15 both of the parties had been previously married. They lived together for over a year, and finally Mrs. .Moran obtained a separation from ilorun on liie ground of persistent cruelty. Plaintiff set out that in May last ho demanded the articles from defendant, who refused to hand them over, lie denied that he ever gave them to his wife a< a present, as lie knew her first husband had had some trouble with her regarding furniture, and lie was anxious to avoid anything of a similar nature happening lo liint.

'J'he defence was that the goods wero given lo Mrs. 'Moran before tier marriage to plainliif. Defendant said a sideboard wus given to her by plaintilf as a present in recognition of her kindness in nursing his sister.

.During the course of his cross-examin-ation rI .defendant, Mr. O'f.eary elicited the inlo:-iiialioii that defendant's first liusband had onct.' sued her in a likn action to the, present, but did not succeul in recoveriiis all In; claimed. Kis Worship ordered that defendant should hand over to plaintiff by August 1, two ru'is of cushions, two rugs, and oil painting, in the alternative, defendant to pay the sum of J:ii life. MOTOIi-CYCLIi TKA NSACTIOK. The alleged sale of a motor-cyelc formed the l>asis of an action heard by Mr. Ilidilell, in which ticorjte Thomas Cur::ons, tiler, ui AVfllingiun, sued Beruaciotta Suited, builder, oi' Seatouu, for the sum of Mr. ,l. .1. M'Clratli appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. T. it. Rill lor defendant. .I'niulili' ,si.-f. out that the machine was sold and delivered to Hit) defendant on .May last. l'Vir the defence if was contended that there was no actual (-ale, none of the provisions m the Sale of lioods Act. luivuij: been eiiiapi ied wiili. All that occurred was a conversation with regard to the bicycle, it beinj; agreed that ii' a trial uui was satisfactory delivery would be lahiii. After ihe evidence had been heard. His Worship gave jmlguuMil for ptaiutilf tor the amount claimed, with costs Xl ils. JJKI.IVJ-'.IJY 01' -VEWyPAI'KHS. A claim tor J.j t>s. lid.. beinif the cost of newspapers stated to liavu been deliveied, was mate. by tllmulell liros., proprietors of the ".livcuinj,' Posl," Wellingloa, against C'laatle. ITuugliion Mills, solicitor, of Blenheim. -Mr. if. van llaast,.who appeared i'or the plniu{ill'j, ill I hat the accounts for the papers v.evc forwarded to defendant, as representative oi a Mr. Draper. fivitlenee was called to show that defendant asked Ilial the accounts in connection with the delivery of the paper should be forwarded lo him, and every three months after a certain cheque had been paid this course was followed. .I mminent was for plaint ills for Ihe amount claimed. ( i.AIM rem Maurice Manlliel, electrical engineer, of Wellington, tor whom >lr. 0, Here appeared, claimed from D. Price Dv. Mas-cur, of \\. iIitt;;loil, who w.i- r.j. seated by Mr. <<. (I. ! i. UaUuii. Mmsum of it.'. lor ivui of moms occupied by defendant in fniirtemiy I'lace. Defendant admitted Ihe amonol of Ihe claim, but offset an umounl <>l tU lis. (id. tor service.! rendered liy hire and liis wife, 'flic hiiter sum wa= made up of items representing the charges for massace done by the'defendniil for plaiufilf, and for clerical and similar work performed by the defendant'.! wife on behalf of plainlilf. A Tier evidence had been heard, _ liis Worship Rave judgment for plaintiff for .CI 15s. lid.

POSSESION 01'' PREMISES. \rlluir Joseph Cudby was proceeded against by llio City Corporation, lor whom Mr. J. O'Slu-a appeared,, on a claim for possession ot premises m Adelaide lload, the rent ot which was staled to 3)0 £+T 12s. in arrear. [Defendant sii'oescd tlio difficulty of finding another place, a fact in yhich His Worship concurred. Mr. KuuleU said however, that defendant must redouble his elVorts to lind other premises, mid made an order I luit_ possession must be given up by August T. UNDEFENDED CASES. Jiubiiient bv default was given lor plaintiffs in tho following undefended cases :-Davis and Clntcr. v. A. M Kenzic .CU Bs. lid.,' costs Al Us. fid.; Hoi>o Gibbons. Sons,' and J . B. Clarkson, Ltdl., v. William Joseph Mnrsdeu Ids. costs onlv; Novelties Ltd. v.A.T. Thompson, JiliK.eusts J!1 3s. 6d.; Archibald Collins i'riigiiell v. William A. liussell and Co., ,£SB 7?. Bd., costs £3 19s. fid.; Commercial Al'oik'v, Ltd., v. Captain A. I t. . Stevens, ,£5, costs jCI (Is. 6d.; Welling on 1 Corporation v. Alexander Johnston, AM t Ills., costs -1:1 lis. lid. ! ,IUDGMKNT SUMMONSES. In judgment summons cases G. l'huit kett was "ordered to pay the Empire Oil t Co Ltd.. the sum of .£IG 2s. 6d. by 1 August IS, in default fourteen days' lm- - prisonment, and George .Hunket.t was ordered to pay Hector A. Ross »-C75 13s. 2d. bv August 8, or jo to gaol inr two months.