NEW ZEALAND TELEGRAMS

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1695, 24 August 1904, Page 32

NEW ZEALAND TELEGRAMS

AUCKLAND, August 22. A visit was paid by a burglar to the private residence of Mr T. Dockfay, Mount Eden road, on Saturday afternoon. Mrs Dockruy left the house to look at some .flowers in a neighbour's garden. On returning twelve minutes later she found the back-door forced open. Large quantities of Mr Dockray's clothes had been stolen, some jewellery belonging to Mrs Dockniy was missing, and about £ls in money, together with Mr Dockray’s gold watch, was also stolen. The whole house had been ransacked, and even dishes had been removed to see if any money was planted. The robber packed everything up into Mr Dockray’s Gladstone bag, and so took his departure, turning

down View road, where ho was seen by a lady, who recognised the bag, but did .not for an instant suspect that anything was wrong. *Mr Dockray estimates his loss at £IOO altogether. Leedham Sweeney and Thomas Bell came up for sentence at the Supreme Court on a charge of assaulting and robbing a seamjan at Clevedon. Prisoners were sentenced to three years* imprisonment with hard labour. Thomas Hermann was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for assaulting a boarding-house-keeper with a table knife. Yoz Yujnovich was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment for attempted outrage on a Maori woman seventy years of age. Alfred Brett,a runliolder at Maungatautari, beyond Kihikihi, suffered heavy loss amongst his stock on Friday night. He lost forty-two fat bullocks, ready for the market. They got out of a turnip paddock, and strayed on to some rough country thickly grown with tutu. Tne cattle appear to have eaten freely of the voung shoots, with the result that fortytwo out of the forty-three were found dead on -Saturday. The Government Stock Inspectors have gone to mvestithe Suureme Court James Suther-

land, who was formerly in business in a largo way in Queen street, was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment for breaches of the Bankruptcy Act. Mr Justice Edwards said all the accused’s offences showed criminal intent, and were not the kind for which the probation law was intended. This variety of crime.was more serious than the ordinaryr c erne, and he intended to pass such a sentence as would let people understand that they cannot commit such acts with impunity. A case of considerable interest to private persons who occasionally employ workmen was heard some time ago by the Arbitration Court. Mr J. 11. Hannan, an Auckland draper, was charged with having committed breaches of tho award in connection with the casual employment of workmen. In a judgment which Mr Justice Chapman has just forwarded to Auckland, his Honor says:—'‘Respondent was charged with hav’ng employed one Chas. Harvey at less than the wage set out in the

award as a minimum wage for the employment of labourers, and also with having discharged Harvey and employed non-union men ac less than the minimum wage.” The award sought to be enforced was the Auckland builders and contractors’ labourers’ award. Respondent is a draper, having no other connection with the award or the building trade than is implied in the fact that he was erecting a building for his own purposes. Reliance was placed on section 3G, subsection 3, of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1900. The judgment proceeds:—‘".L'lie decision was reserved so that I might have an opportunity of discussing the question with the Judges at the ensuing sitting of the Court of Appeal. I have consulted several of the Judges, and they all hold the opinion, with which I now concur (though at one time I held a different opinion) that the award does not bind a person in respoudent’s position. It is clear that lie is not engaged in an industry to which the award relates, and (lie only question is whether lie is connected with it. There are, however, several ways in which a person may be connected with an industry without being engaged in it. The expression might, for instance, have been used by the Legislature to make sure of binding sleeping partners, persons who

make a business of building houses for sale, and others who might not be considered to be actually engaged in the business, and other persons who have a 1 Ice connection with other industries. The opinion to the contrary expressed in the ease, not argued by counsel (Cable’s Case Book of Awards, vol. iv., 334), must now be considered to be overruled. Wo have already had occasion to remark in the judgment of tho Court in the Builders’ Labourers versus Clark, decided at this sitting, that it would be a harsh step for the Legislature to bind parties who had no moans of taking part in the formation of an award; but that there is no such hardship in enacting that the persons who enter into business in any industry shall bn bound to inquire what awards bnd them. Here, however, there would bo hardship, as a person merely building his own house, perhaps in a distant part of the country, cannot be expected to give attention to the matter. Experience shows that the question, though important in principle, is of less

practical importance than might be supposed, as it only crops up at rare intervals, because persons are usually found to adopt the award rates. The application is dismissed with <£2 2s ..costs-, witnesses’ expenses and disbursements to be fixed by the Clerk of Awards.” PALMERSTON, August 22. A case presenting extraordinary features was heard at the Magistrate’s Court to-day. A girl charged a settler named Pearce with assault. Complainant’s evidence was supported by that of a girl friend who was allegedly in the house at -the time. Things were looking dark for defendant, when a married sister of the girl alleged to have been assaulted walked voluntarily into the box and swore that (ho whole thing was a put-up job, and that the complainant had told her she intended to bring the action to get ,£SO out of defendant. She added she had given her sister away because her sister had given her away. The case was dismissed. MASTERTON,' August 22. In the District Court, before Judge Wal'd, a charge of fraud, preferred by the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Company against Archie Colin Stewart, was called, but owing to a technical irregularity in the indictment, fresh proceedings will have to be taken.