MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4512, 13 November 1901, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

TUESDAY, NOVEAIBER 12. (Before Air Hasclden, S.M.) In tho following cases judgment was given for plaintiffs for amounts claimed, with costs: —Stewart Timber, Glass and Hardware Company v. Frank E. Satinden, C 29 C.H Id, costs £1 3s; same v. Deni.s O’Neil, for costs, .11; same v. J. Fischer. £2 10s Cd, costs ss; Kapai Gold Dredging Company v. William B i.tey, £lO, costs 23s Gd; same v. C. H. Alason, .£lO, costs 23s Cd; C. Jcnkinson v. Herbert AVilmhurst, £l3, costs £1 10s 6d ; William Hendry v. Herbert Gale, £5 I.os, costs 23s 6d ; J. T. Glover v. Alfred A. George, IGs, costs ss; AA’el. lington Afeat Export Company v. AVUliam Rowe, £2B, costs i- 9s (this claim wars also for possesion, but possession was given up); E. J. AA’alsh and Co. v. Louie Simraonds, £2 ss, costs os; Kirkealdic, Stains and Co. v. Sep. timus H. Robson, £8 9s Bd, costs 8s; and Robert Gilkcs v. Alary Larkins. £6 10s Gd, costs Bs. • In the case AVilliam J. Will hi ms v. Brooks and Nelson, for =£l6 19s. plaini ilf was nonsuited; and in Brooks and Ni Ison v. AVilliam J. AVilliams, judgment was given for plaintiff for £24 12s lid, without costs, out of £4O 13s 3d claimed. In Benjamin Smith v. Joseph Kenny, claim £2l IGs and possession, judgment was given for amount claimed, with £2 11s costs and possession on November 13th. In Lily Alooro v. Joseph Burke, claim £3O, tho hearing was adjourned until November 19th on tho application of tho defendant, ho undertaking to return some jewellery when the case was called on. Henry J. Baker claimed £6O from AV. j. Henry for an alleged breach of con. tract. Air Hindmarsh appeared for tho plaintiff and Mr Skorrctt for tho defendant. Tho plaintiff stated that ho was a tailor by trade, and had been employed by tho defendant in his shop on Lambtou quay. The defendant had ordered him to return to work every evening after six o’clock until 8.30 p.m., and he had refused to do so. The defendant had replied that if ho did not comb back in tho evenings ho need not return to the shop any more. Other words had passed, and the defendant had threatened to “punch him on the nose.” Ho claimed damages for breach of contract through defendant torminat. ing tho engagement by wrongfully rcduiring him to work after hours. To Air Skorrctt: Ho had not verbally agreed at tho time of the engagement to work at nights. Ho had sometimes worked at night when in the Cuba, street shop belonging to Air Henry. He had been employed for a month and ten days, and while in the Lamhton quay shop had boon in solo charge. The defence was that there had been no threat, and that tho plaintiff had agreed to return to work. His Worship gave judgment for tho plaintiff for £3 10s, without costs, that amount having formerly been tendered in satisfaction by tho defendant. At tho Alount Cook Police Station yesterday, before Mr T. B. Dwan, J.P., two first offenders were each fined 5s for drunkenness, and N. Campbell and Leonard Craig were each fined 40s or fourteen days’ imprisonment, they having long lists of convictions against them.