MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIII, Issue 1703, 17 December 1919, Page 7

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

{Boforo* Mr J. L. Stout, S.M.) CLAIM FOR WAGES.

A claim for compensation from his employer f< r a complaint contracted while woi king tor S- J, Tcaz, butcher, of Konirotoa (Mr J. Graham, Feilding), was made by Alfred Wilton (Mr 11. R. Cooper) yea* torday afternoon in the Magistrates Louit before Mr J, L. Stout, S.M. Plaintiff statid that ho had been employed by the defendant as a butcher tor three years at (he rate of £3 10s per wonk. In January, 1919, he developed varicow veins and was incapacitated for work toi a month and now claimed his wages_ for dint period together with £4 for overtime. This latter, however, was abandoned by counsel. , Considerable legal argument ensued as to whether the clipm should lie made under the Workers Compensation Act. Defendant claimed tiiat if he was entitled to full wages ho would receive better admntagc undei the Act. ... ,i A. number of authorities were quoted on the subject and his Worship reserved do cision.

SALE OF A MOTOR CYCLE. Wiliam White, draper, o( Auckland, claimed from W. N. McKinnon, proprietor of the Hcndio Motor Cycle Works, Palmerston North, the sum of £sl 15s, being - the amount of a deposit on a B.S.A. motor, bicycle with £1 15s expenses. Mr H. R. Cooper was for the plaintiff and Mr B. R. Jacobs for .the defendant. The plaintiff stated in evidence that ho had nought the bftycle from defendant in August, 'l9lß, and had paid £SO deposit on it md a side car. Afterwards he discovered the machine, which was a second hand one, 0 be most unsatisfactory, despite the fact hat the defendant had guaranteed it. [’ho full price of the machine and side ear ,vns £9O; the bicycle alone £62 10s. Taliliip it on iiio day of purclmso without tho lido car ho was 'continually stuck up, and vas told by another cyclist that tho mag'.oto was wrong. After a week or more of ,-outiimal break-downs lie. took it back to lefondant and asked for a refund of his money. Defendant refused to refund the loposit, stating that llio agreement had icon signed, but agreed to re-sell the ma ■liino. Defendant had eventually done so. Mid in the meantime plaintiff had gone to ivo ip Auckland but had not received his leiiosil in return. On the contrary ho had rcoived an account for £l4 14s 6d for refairs and commission. On seeing the ji cycle later when in possession of the doend a nt, plaintiff saw that it showed sijjiis >f use and had had a different magneto md carburettor fitted. , To Mr Jacobs, witness said that Me piaranko was given verbally and that he md not thought it necessary to have the juaranlce in writing when signing the igreomfiil. Witness did not know of any nechanism that had been repaired in the .ieycle during the time ho had itFT R,. Kilgour, farmer, said that ho lire I,'cn iiio plaintiff's bicycle immodatclv if ter the purchase and had vainly helped dm to make it work. • Mr Jacobs suhmited that the defendant iad Ir on asked to repair the bicycle bv the daintiff, who had. subsequently retimed it vith the remark that he was fml up witli it nd wanted to sell it. Defendant had said hat as the whole of tho purchase money mid iot been paid ho-would-have to sell it himelf and took possesion of it for that purlose. , ~,11 Defendant, in evidence, said that ho had iot guaranteed tho machine as he did not nake a practice of so doing. Minor repairs o the machine became necessary during Me cried in which the plaintiff had possession ,f it. On plaintiff returning the machine vith the loqncst that defendant should °ll it lie had endeavoured to do so. Evcntii,!ly ho- sold the machine and the purchaser iad apparently found it satisfactory as he iad not. In ard further of it. One reason vliy the bicycle did not run satisfactorily vis tli.it it lied been) lubricated with linseed iil. A new tyre bad to be put, on the lievelo before-lie could sell it. The cost of (■pairs executed and commission on tho .ale amounted to £l4 14s 6d. This had ;een deducted from tho amount claimed and 237 Osbdsliad been paid into Court. Ono reason why ho had not paid tho money mmediatoiy was that ho had taken another notor cycle in part payment. James Cowlislmv, upholsterer, said that io had on tho request of the plaintiff visited ho defendant in reference to the bicycle. Wvontually the bicycle had been sold and 1 bother taken as part payment, lie in■orined plaintiff, who replied that witness hould say that lm (tho plaintiff) should be iron £SO as full payment of hi< deposit,. Hie defendant had not paid him the amount or transmision to the plaintiff* in Auckland. Tho Magistrate hold that tho defendant md treated the bicycle as being bis own uoporty. It was apparent that tho machine vas unsatisfactory and that the defendant md no right to charge for the repairswhich ie mideiiook. For another tiling lie had no •ight to accept another machine r.s part lavmenl. Judgment, was therefore for Me ilaintifT for the full amount claimed with osts against the defendant amounting to 16 ss. 11. E. BENNETT’S CASE. IT. E. Bennett was charged with wilfully ..maging a rose bush, Uu. pro[;erty of tho .'almerston North Borough Council, to the value of 2s. Senior-Sergeant Fraser conducted the proiccntion, and stated that a considerable lumber of complaints about thefts of flowers ram tho Square wore made. On September 7th the police received a letter from the own clerk to this effect and asking that tops should be taken. Defendant, in reply to the Magistrate, rankly admitted he hud plucked the roses. Tho Magistrate imposed a lino of £5 and ,-osts.