(Before H. Y. Widdowson, Esq., S.M.J Judgment bv default in each of tht&c cases:— Agnes'R. Patereon (Mr J. Wilkinson) v. William H. Hunt, £ls 18s 3d, on an account stated; Frank Barnett (Mr F. S. Brent) v. Alfred James Buss, £2 10s, bicycle goods; John Ednioud (Mr R. M. Rutherford) v. J. Andrews, of Omakau, £l3 14s, hardware; T. E. iShiel and Co. v. Charles-Hitchcox, £3 6s, fruit and produce; same v. George Hoieefield, of Taradale, £2 fe. 9d, oats ;Nimmo and Blair (Mr W L. Moore) v. Count Otto von Rome, of Wvndham, £2 Os 6d, seeds; Thomas La'tta (Mr W. L Moore) v. Jonathan Richardson, of Pou.iawea, £l4 lis 6d, timber; Archibald Thompson (Mr W. L. Moore) v. A. E. Coombes, of Aratapu, £7 14s 6d, cvcles; Wm. Chapman Gray v. William Jephson, £lO 19s 6d, on a promissory note.
Inspector of Awards v. J. G. Laurenson. —Claim, £lO, as penalty for a breach of the Bakers ami Pastrycooks' award.—Hi6 Worship gave judgment harem in substance as follows: —"The plaintiff claims £lO a.- ii-ltv in that during the period from i 'i "August. 1914, to the 17lh OctoLxv. . ,N, the defendant employed John Buvci as a baker's laborer at a wa»o of 20a pl-r week instead of 48ft pel' week, as required by tho said award. Jehu Boycr is 17 years of age, and was employed to run message and do light work. Defendant says he was under the impression that ho could keep a lad to run messages and do light work. The award dcos not provide for the employment of youths except as apprentices. Defendant's counsel contends that he docs not do the work of a baker's laborer, and such employment is not prohibited by the award. Defendant does not employ a bakers laborer, but it is cleaa-—in fact, it is admitted — that if a laborer were employed, part at any rate of the work done by Boy or would be done by him. Tho cases that might be cited show that every worker under an award must belong to ono or other of the, classes epecificd in tho award. In tho award in the present case tho classes of worker contemplated by tho award are clearly specified, and there is no doubt that defendant committed a breach by employing the youth at the wages paid. 1 do not think, however, that defendant acted otherwise than in an honest but mistaken view of the provisions of the award, and I shall not therefore impoeo a, heavy penalty. I may eay that tho b)y*s earnings appear to me to be no more than the wages actually paid."—-Mr Hanlon said he had been asked to ask for leavo to appeal.—His Worship: On tho facts?— Mr Hanlon : No, sir, on tho interpretation of the award.—His Worship : I And as a fact that he was doing laborer's work.— Mr'Hanlon: Which we contest, saying that that is the misinterpretation of tho award. —Leavo was given to appeal on anv questions of law involved. 6. W. Wo.:tds and Co. (Invcrcargill) v. Cecil Sharp.—Claim, £7 2s 6d, on a judgment summons.—No appearance of defendant, who was ordered to pay forthwith the amount, with 8s costs, or bo imprisoned for seven days. J. Roinison and Co. (Mr Brown) v. Frederick Haneon.—Claim, £4 2» Id, on a judgment summons No appearance; sum to be paid forthwith, with 5s costs, or four days' imprisonment. Robert Brunton (Mr W. hj. Moore) v. Walter E. Hall.—Claim. £2 14s 2d, on a, judgment summons.—No appearance; order to pay forthwith £2 4s 2a, with 5s costs, or three days' imprisonment. CITY POLICE CURT. (Before H. Y. Widdowson, Esq., S.M.) Drunkenness. —Three first offendors were each fined 5s or 24 hours' imprisonment, and a fourth 10s or 24 hours. Assault, and Robbery.—Angus Pollock, William John Newman, and Alfred M'Farlane were charged with assaulting and robbing John Jones of 2s Bd. Mr Irwin appeared for M'Farlane.—Seniorsergeant Dart, in asking for a remand till Friday, said it was alleged that the accused persuaded Jones to get a bottle of beer for them, and when in Vogel street they knocked him down and took 2s 8d out of his pocket. There was not much violence used.—The accused were remanded until Friday, bail being allowed in their own recognisance of £IOO each and two sureties of £SO each. Theft.—Albert Smith, on remand, was charged with stealing a bicycle valued at £4 10s, and was further remanded until to-morrow morning, in order to see whether' he could be admitted to the Roto Roa Inebriates' Home.
Permanent link to this item
THE COURTS-TO-DAY, Evening Star, Issue 15670, 8 December 1914