MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Evening Star, Issue 20972, 10 December 1931, Page 9

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 10. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) DEFAULT CASES. Judgment, with costs, was given for plaintiffs by default in the following cases:—T. H. Drower v. B. Marsh, LI7 10s, rent due; Hunt and White v. Colin AlTntosh (Alexandra), £3 Os, goods supplied; Best’s v. Bert Buckley, £l. goods supplied ; Oscar Louis Holden v. 'Archibald Gray and William John Burns, £5, promissory note due ; Reilly’s Central Produce Mart Ltd. v. J. Aitkenhead (Parctai), £2 3s Id, goods supplied; J. L. Thomson v. 1. Blaney (Port Chalmers), 17s 4d, costs of claim; National Mortgage and Agency Co. of Now Zealand Ltd. v. E. G. . O’Callaghan and Co. (Blenheim), £4 3 sd, goods supplied; D.S.A. Ltd. v. W. Young, 7s, goods supplied; A. and W. M'Carthy v! Arthur Herbert King (Bluff), £4 7s sd, goods supplied; Alma Coory v. Annie Carr, £5 10s, wages due and work done; Adam Smith v. J. H. Wootton, £3 ss, amount of cheque dishonoured and interest due ; John Edward Butler Ltd. v. Kathehne Campbell (Lumsden), £3 Gs 6d, goods supplied. i CLAIM FOR WORK DONE. William Hugh Sanders proceeded against A. L. Lamb on a claim for £2 5s for removal work from Dunedin to Wingatui effected by plaintiff for defendant at the latter’s request. Evidence was heard in support of the claim, and for the defence it was stated in evidence that the defendant was engaged to do a carting job for a man named David Anderson, of Kaikorai. The defendant had done one load, but wanted to go out that night, and rang plaintiff under Anderson’s instructions. The Magistrate said that the question was whether defendant engaged the plaintiff outright or whether ho was acting as agent for Anderson. A person engaging another must clearly indicate if lie were contracting merely as an agent, and defendant had not shown to the satisfaction of the court that he had done so. Judgment was given for plaintiff for tli© amount claimed, with costs amounting to £2 4s. APPRENTICESHIP MATTER. The District Registrar of Apprentices (Mr G. H. Lightfoot) proceeded against E. Howlison on a claim to recover £lO as penalty for a breach of the Otago Motor Engineering Trade Apprenticeship Order. The statement setting out the alleged breach was that defendant employed James Davidson as an apprentice during June, July, and August, and failed to have executed a contract of apprenticeship in writing and registered an a manner prescribed by the Act. Evidence was heard in support of the claim, and the case is proceeding.