MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVIII, Issue 18414, 21 May 1920, Page 7

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

CHRISTCHURCH. Mr S. E. M’Carthy, S.M., presided at, yesterday’s sitting of the Christchurch Magistrate’s Court. I'wo first, offenders, women, wore earl: fined ss. in default twenty-four hours’ imprisonment for drunkenness. Tho Now Zealand Farmers’ Co-opera-tive Association (Sir W. Walton) claimed from Ralph Mackloy the sum of £2 10s (id for parts supplied to a magneto and also lor remagnetising a nia .-siHr,. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for the lull amount, together with costs. Stella. Frederick Guy (Mr C. Holmes) proceeded against George Nevoll (Mr P. I*. J. Amedeo), to recover the rum of .CO advanced by the plaintiff to tho defendant and further to recover ihe turn of £1 Is 4d. interest at the rat' of 8 per centum per annum on tho advance. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for tile sum of £9 and costs. 'A. J- Clark was ordered to give up nnssosdon of a tenement to John Godfrey Parish (Mr |\ At. Gresson) on or he faro August 31, 1920. Robert- Napier "Wickham, under a judgment summons, was ordered to pay Cecil Louisson (Mr W. J. Hunter) tho sum of £(> Is 3d, in default three weeks’ imprisonment. W. T. Truscott was ordered to pay £1 10s 3d to G- A. Black more (Mr"F. D. Sargent), in do- . fault one week’s imprisonment. Judgment for plaintiff hy default ! was given in each of the following undefended cases: —Massey, Harris Company. Ltd. v. John Brosnehan, 12s costs j only; John H. Glasson v. Charles j Mayo. 10s costs only; Graham. Wilson i and Smellio v. 11. R. Howartson, £7 3s I Od; M. O’Brien and Co.. Ltd. v John j Richard M’Kcmuo M’Bryde, £4 14s 2d. (Before Mr V. G. Day, S.M.) j Joshua Maniaker, labourer, Islington (Mr W. J. Hunter), claimed from the | Broad fields Shearing Shod Company, Ltd. (Mr H. D. Acland), the sum of £7 ! 14s lid, made up of £1 3s (id wages, I and £6 11s 5d ration allowance. Mr Hunter said that the case would raise an interesting question in connection with the interpretation of the shearers’ award. Plaintiff had been engaged by the defendant company to work" as a shod hand in the shearing H lied at the rate of 4s a hundred. Ilis tally worked out at £lB lGs, of which £l7 12s Gd had been paid on account. The balance, £1 3s 6d, had been paid into Court, and the claim was now for £0 11s sd, ration allowance, under clause 17 of the award, which said that where rations were not- provided by the employers tho men should be paid £1 a week in addition to wages. The defence. he believed, would bo that the plaintiff hajd worked under contract, as provided for hy clause 28. Counsel submitted that clause 28 did not apply to cases of this kind at all. . . Mr Acland said that the principal question was the meaning of -contract.” The difficulty was that the award had been made for cheep-owners and shearers, and the conditions did not fit in with work in co-operative sheds, where local men were usually employed. The only satisfactory wav for ‘these companies was to work* 'on the system of payment per hundred. , , Tho Magistrate held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover, and he would he allowed ration money at the i ate of £1 per week for five and a half weeks. Mr Dav said that he did not think the arrangement that plaintiff should get 4s a hundred was equitable. The wages should ho calculated at the rate of £3 os a week. LYTTELTON. Before Mr F. G. Norton, J.T., Charles Porteous, on a charge of otealin o- a lady’s purse containing £l3, from tho Lvttelton Hotel, was remanded i to appear before the Magistrate on j Wednesday next at Lyttelton.