THE COURTS.-TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 7798, 20 December 1888, Page 2

THE COURTS.-TO-DAY.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Messrs I. Green and C. Allen, Justices.)

In the following cases judgment was given by default for the amounts claimed, with costs:—James Fowler v. William Stewart, LI 4s, for horse shoes supplied (Mr Thornton for the plaintiff); George Rutherford (Outram) v. John Thomson, L 8 9s lid, goods supplied (Mr Thornton for the plaintiff) ; Dunedin Iron and Woodware Company v. F. Whelan (Tcviot), L 7 6s 4d, goods supplied. Mary E. Gill v. Mary Lonnie.— Claim, J. Is £d, balance of account due. Mr Thornton appeared for the plaintiff; Mr Calvert for the defendant.—Before the case was opened Mr Calvert took exception to the statement of claim, which did not give a full and explicit statement of the items sold as required by the Act, but merely said " To account rendered for dress."—The Bench ruled that as the defendant had paid L 3 on account some five months ago it was clear that at that time she had particulars of the item, and did not dispute the charge mado.—Mr Calvert then asked for an adjournment, as he had just received a telegram from his client, who was detained at Palmerston by an accident, and could not reach town in time for that day's sitting of the Court.—Mr Thornton asked that in the event of an adjournment being granted costs should be given his client.—Mr Green said that the balance of account had! clearly been owing for some time, and had not been disputed ; costs would therefore be granted in the event of the application for adjournment being persevered with.—Mr Calvert said that the amount in dispute was only lis 4d, and the dispute was a legitimate, and not a vexatious, one on the defendant's part.— Mr Green said that the Bench had evidence before them (re ferring to the Bummons) that the defendant had been supplied with a bill of particulars, inasmuch as she had paid something on account. —Mr Calvert: Your Worship decides that before hearing the evidence.— Mr Green repeated that they had evidence before them.—Mr Calvert: It is a rank piece of injustice, and 1 decline to stop here. (Counsel here left the Court.)—Mr Green : We will not be dictated to in that way. You can now proceed with your case, Mr Thornton.—Evidence for the plaintiff was then given, after which Mr Green said that the Bench were satisfied that the plaintiff had clearly proved her case. Judgment would be given for the amount claimed, with costs.

CITY POLICE COURT.

(Before Mr E. H. Carew, R.M.)

Drunkenness.—Two first offenders were convicted and discharged. Window Breaking.— James Dunlop was charged with breaking two panes of glass in the window of a house in Stafford street occupied by Alice Blair.—Accused pleaded guilty, but said that he smashed the window because, after spending. a good deal of money in tho house, the inmates pinned him and " went through " his pockets with the object of robbing him.—His Worship said that was no defence, and ordered accused to pay a fine of 5s in addition to the damage (22s 6d) done, in default threo days' imprisonment. Breach of the Employment of Females Act.— John Duthie and James Duthie were charged with committing breaches of the Employment of Females Act by employing at sewing, in a clothing work room in George street, two girls of over eighteen years of age, and named Nellie Brook and Jane Wilson, for more than eight hours, on the 13th inst. —Mr Fraser, who appeared for the defendants, said that they would admit that a breach of the Act had been [committed, but the facts were that the girls had been employed respectively only 45min and 35min over tho proper time. Defendants fully recognised that they were responsible for the proper carrying on of all departments of their establishments, but the unfortunate part of the affair was that there was a foreman in charge of the workroom, and the defendants were not aware that a breach of the Act was beingcommitted. The presentseason was a very busy one for dressmakers, and it was a great temptation to a forewoman to push work on whjen the girls were willing to work overtime, as they usually were.—His Worship said the defendants were convicted, and then asked tho police if there were any previous convictions against them.—Sergeant-major Bevin said that a year ago John Duthio, when a partner in the firm of Mollison and Duthie, was convicted of a similar offence. —Mr Fraser said that Mr Duthie, when with the firm just mentioned, had nothing to do with tho factory department.—His Worship said that under the circumstances he would inflict a light penalty, but Mr Duthie would have to no careful, there being now two convictions on record against him, and if a third case was proved against him tho penalty would doubtless be muoh higher. In this case the defendants would each be fined 10s, with costs.

The Factory Act.— James P. Simon and John Simon, jun., were charged with employing at" seizing," incidenta lto the bootmaking trade, in a workroom at George and Bath streets, a boy, fourteen and a-half years of age, and named Henry Sandford, thirty-five minutes after 2 p.m. on Saturday last.—The defendants said they were not aware that they were infringing the Act by employing tho boy at " seizing" boots, which consisted simply of cleaning them up. —His Worship said that the Act laid down that "ornamenting or adapting goods for sale " constituted employment; and that as " seizing " boots was really putting a polish on them so as to make them saleable, the employment of the boy thereat clearly brought the defendants within the scope of the Aot. It was, however, a first offence, and a fine of 10s each, with costs, would meet the case,