THE COURTS-TO-DAY

Evening Star, Issue 17032, 1 May 1919, Page 6

THE COURTS-TO-DAY

MAGISTRATE'S COURT. (Before 11. Y. Widdowson, Esq., S.M.) Judgment by default, with costs, was given for plaintiffs in the following cases : —Thomas Wm. Dobbie v. Mary Pearson, £2 16s, balance of sum paid to Penrose, and Co. on defendant's behalf; C. Walker v. John Jones, £ls 10s, for board and and lodging; 'Trustees. Executors, and Agency Company v. Arthur LiiAvrence, costs only, ss; Wright, Stephenson, and Co., Ltd. v. G. Smith, £4 19s 3d, balance owing for goods supplied; Hallenstein Bros. (Fnvercargill) v. Mary Veronica Cash, £l2 7s, amount of account stated : Central Produce Market v. John Bennetts (Roxburgh), costs only, 13.5.

Echo of the Epidemic:.—The Inspector of Factories (Mr L. I). Browett) .proceeded against David Young, licensee ot the Excelsior Hotel, on live informations for breaches of the Dunedin hotel workers' award, in that lie failed to pay wages to three barmaids and two barmen for tho period during which the hotel was ■eompulsoi'ily closed owing to the influenza epidemic. £lO was claimed as penalty in each case.—Defendant admitted that the employees concerned wero in his employ up to the day prior to the issue of the proclamation, and that no notice of dismissal had been given to them..—Evidence: for the prosecution war, to the effect that defendant had told, the.se employees at the time the hotel was closed that he would let them know when they -were to return. None of the five asked for wages for the period.—The defence was that the proclamation by the Health Officer rendered the performance of a. centrrvet by either party leg-ally impossible. Counsel quoted authorities in support of his contention that the embargo suspended any contract, and that an employee could not sne for wages for work the performing of which would have been a breach of the law.—Mr Browetfc 'Contended that Mr Young could have terminated the engagements" by giving 48 hours' notice and- reengaged them nrfterwa.rds. He failed to do this, and-consequently'brought himself under the, law. Mr Browett contended further that had the employees failed to conio back at the teivmination of the term they would have, in the ci it em stances, been liable for damages.—His Worship said that the only .point he had to consider was that raised by Mr Lan^—viz., that it would have been illegal tor the employees to have worked during the closed period: or for the employer to have employed tlhem; in short, that the period was to be cut right out. Judgment would bo reserved.