LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 12546, 13 April 1904, Page 7

LAW AND POLICE.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

A sitting of th© Magistrate's Court was held before Mr. C. O. Kettle, S.M., yesterday afternoon.

A Tailor's Agreement: After hearing further evidence in connection with the claim for £50 damages by Fred. Colledge against James Foster. His Worship said it appeared that the plaintiff had been engaged by the defendant as a cutter in hi 3 tailoring establishment for a term of five years. An agreement was drawn up, and in one of the clauses it was stated that if either of tho parties committed a broach of the .Tgulations therein he should forfeit £50 as damages. It appeared that when the plaintiff had worked for the defendant for about 12 months Mr. Foster gave him a month's notice, which ho was not entitled to do under the agreement. The defendant, on the other hand, claimed that; he was justified in terminating the agreement, as, he said, th« plaintiff was incompetent, and if this had been proved His Worship would have agreed with him ; but it had not, and be would give judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs. The defendant had counter-claimed £50 damages,_ alleging that the plaintiff left his service of his own accord, but ho (Mr. Kettle) did not consider that this had been proved. Materials to the value of £10 14s 6d had been given to the plaintiff over and above his wages, and defendant would get judgment for that amount only. Mr. Brook-field appeared for the plaint iff "and Mr. Parr (instructed by Messrs. Odder and Goldwater) for the defendant.

. POLICE COURT NEWS. The sitting of the Police Court yesterday was held before Mr. O. C. Kettle, S.M. Drunkenness.- A first offender for drunkenness, , who pleaded guilty, was convicted and fined 5s ant? costs.

Maintenance: Richard Best applied for the remission of arrears on a maintenance order against him for the support of his two children, and also for a reduction in the instalments, and on the police consenting His Worship granted both applications and reduced the order to 103 per child per month. The Society for the Protection of Women and Children (represented by Mr. Brookfield) took action against William Edwin Harris and Alfred Harris for failing to contribute towards the support of their mother; Alfred Arnold for the support of his wife; and Joseph William Dconin for the support of his wife and child. After hearing the evidence in connection with the different applications His Worship made orders against Alfred Harris for Is (xl per week and William Edwin Harris for 5s per week; Alfred Arnold for 15s per week; and Joseph William Doonin for 15s per week. In Doonin'a case the defendant explained that he had been "sorrowful" lately, and had given way to drink. His Worship said as that was so he had better issue a prohibition order against him, and an order was made accordingly. A Wife Sued for Support: Ami Oliver wasj sued by Iter husband, Edward Samuel Oliver, for maintenance on the grounds that he was a destitute person, arid that his wife had a separate estate. Mr. J. R. Reed, who supported the application, explained that the parties had agreed some time ago to a mutual separation, his client going away and working for himself and transferring ail his property over fo his wife. When he had been working in this way for some time his client became incapacitated and unable to work, and had been supported by his brother since. Mr. Alexander, on behalf of the wife, objected to the application on the ground that the brother should be made to contribute to the applicant's maintenance. He admitted that Mrs. Oliver had an income of £300 per annum. His Worship said he did not see why the brother should be made to contribute when the wife could easily supply the applicant's wants, and he made an order for the maximum amount, of £1 per week. Alleged Breaking and Entering: Two youths, named Jos. Underwood and Robert Batten, represented by Mr. J. I', Reed, appeared to answer a charge of breaking and entering into the diningroom of iho Ellerslio racecourse and stealing therefrom two pepper bottles, valued at Is, the property of John King. Counsel pressed for summary jurisdiction on the ground that the diningroom at the racecourse was not a "dwellinghouse" or a " shop" under the Act. His Worship said as the case was laid as an indictable one and Sub-Inspector Black refused to amend the information, he could not do oth'<rwise than commit the aeeused for trial should thwo be sufficient evidence to do so. The case was then treated as an indictable one, and evidence for tho prosecution was heard to the effect that a labourer had seen one of tho boys come out of the diningroom window. Some popper tumbled out of their pockets when they, wore searched and two pepper bottlas were subsequently found under a grating. Tho acini Mid reserved their defence, owl on pleading "Not guilty" wero committed for trial. Bail was allowed, each in one surety ol' £25. ,