MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14800, 6 April 1910, Page 7

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, A.pbil 5. ' (Before .Mr 11. Y. Widdowson, S.M.) Judgment was given for plaintiffs in.tho following oases by default:—E. C.'Dreuvcr (Mr Irwin) v. 11. W. Mcnaro, £4 7s, goods (rests '103); Niinmo and Blair (Mr W. L. Moore) v. Catherine Martha King (Pembroke), £1 6s, goods (costs ss); A. and T, Burt, Ltd. (Mr W. L. Moore) v, George A. Bannerman (Auckland), £117 16s, dishonoured promissory note and interest (costs £5 19s); M'Gavin and Co. (Mr Hag-, gitt) v. L. C. Adams (Ekctahuna), £5, goods (costs £1 Is); Johnstone, Sons, and Co. (Mr Scantlabury) v. Albert John Burtt (Wanganui), £1 12s 6d, goods (costs 10s); Thomson, Cloghorn, and Co (Mr Ramsay) v. 11. J. Newdick (Auckland), £2 2s, subscription duo (costs lis). Hollows v. Christio Bros. (Ltd.).-Tho hearing was Resumed from laet week in tho case of Inspector of Awards (Joseph Hollows), who proceeded against Christie Bros. (Ltd.), to recover £10 damages, on the ground that tho company employed John W. I'enton from Deccmbor 14, 1909, to. February 1, 19)0, " pulling down head coal, filling scams, and fallen pillars and head coal," and paid him shift wages instead of. " picco pillar rates," as required by the award. Mr Allan appeared for tho company. —J. W. Fonton; recalled, stated that ho was paid shift wages (10s) for clearing : away loose coal that camp down from a crush in the mine, and in putting in props—Daniel M'Ewan, employed at tho Saddle Hill mine, deposed that it was not usual to pay shift wages for moving.loso coal. _ Such work was paid for at pillar rates, Witness said there was ,'l dispute as. to tlio rate tc be paid, and Mr Christie told him Mr Scott (secretary of Employers' • Association) said . pillar rates would have to bo paid.—To Mr Allan witness said he.would bo much surprised to hoar that Mr Chri6tio and Mr Scott both stated that tho conference referred to related to another matter altogethr.—E. A. Lo Crcn (Inspector of Factories) 6aid a conference had .been held at which Mr Scott had said that tho fall of looso coal would bo a perquisite to the miner, and that shifting such coal would have to be paid for at piecework rates, with a shift minimum wage.—Mr Allan, at tho, close of. tho ovidenco given by tho men, contended that a nonsuit must be given. There had evidently been a misunderstanding as to tho agreement come to between the owners and tho men. Ho oxplainod that tho mine was worked on plans prepared by tho engineer, by which tho various passages wore cut and tho mine was supported by solid blocks known as pillars. When all the solid coal was taken out to tho boundary the Mm worked baok, taking heading coal and tho pillars. Ho contended that it was in>.. possiblo to bring tho work dono by tho miners who had given ovidenco under the provisions of tho award, because they were not extracting pillars, or, in other words, were not hewing. The rates claimed were what was known as hewing rates for coal. Tho work the men wore called upon to do was of an emergency character owing to n crush in the mine that had caused considerable trouble by bringing down looso coal- that might have 1 been the mean 6 of starting a lire in tho mine if allowed to-re-main. 'As a consequence, every man in the mino was taken off his usual work to' clear, up tho mino and put in props, and proper payment had been given for that work.—His Worship said he would give his decision if possiblo on Tuesday next, • .lames Wron v. R. Waghorn.—Claim to recover 30s 4d, balance duo on purchase by defendant, of wallpapers and other paperhungers' materials. Defendant paid 18s 4d into court, leaving 12s in dispute.—Mr A. C. Smith appeared for plaintiff, and Mr I'. Thomson for defendant.—The original transaction was tho purchase of 48 yards of frieze-; in December, 1909, but the point in dispute as to whether or not some of the goods received on approval had been returned—A verdict was given for plaintiff for 12s, with lis costs.

M'Lcau mid Co. v. Robort Collier. — Action to recover £3 18s, commission at the rate .of 5 per cent, on £78, one year's rout o f premises, the property of defendant, and let to Mrs Gorman through plaintiff's instrumentality.—Mr' P. Thomson appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Statham for defendant.—The defence was that tho business was not brought about by tho agancy of the plaintiff.—After hearng evidence, which was very conflicting, his Worship non-suited tho plaintiff, with £1 17s cusl«.