MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18606, 14 July 1922, Page 10

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thubsdat, Jult 13. ) (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) Undefended Cases. —Judgment was given for plaintiffs by default m the following cases.—Brown, Ewing and Co. v. Terence Creighton (Queenstown), claim £6 4s Bkh balance of an account for goods supplied (posts £1 10s 6d); Watts and. Co. v. J. M'Nair (Bee’s Junction), claim £7 for goods supplied (costs £1 12s 6d); Laidlaw and Gray v. Frederick Joseph Torrie (Timaru), claim £3 5s for goods supplied (costs £1 3s 6d); G. B. Glossop v. Agnes Carmichael, claim £2 19s 2d for milk supplied (costs £1 3e 6d); same v. Charlee Gee, claim 13s lOd for milk supplied (costs 8s); same v. James Schofield, claim 17s 6d for milk supplied (costs 10s); Thomson’s, Ltd,, v, W. H. Overton (Whangarei), claim for costs only (£1 ss); E. Johns v. Jas. Cavanagh (Lawrence), claim £lO 2s 7d fpr goods supplied (costs £2 14s). Judgment Summonses. —Johnson and Laidlaw proceeded against H. Thomson on a judgment summons for £2O 19s being the amount. of an account stated, with costs added. An order was made for the payment of the amount claimed with costs (£1 ss), in default three weeks’ imprison-. inent. Edward John, Bryant v. Dalpb Curline, claim on* a judgment summons for £1 16s on a promissory note. An order was made for the amount claimed, with costs (ss), in default two days’ imprisonment. John Ligaa v.. Thomas J. Eyan, claim on a judgment summons for £9 12s for board and lodging. An order was mode for the payment of the amount claimed, with costs (12s), in default 10 days’ imprisonment. A Question of Interpretation.—Luke D. Browett, on behalf of the Labour Department, claimed a penalty of £lO from Messrs M'Gavin and Co. (Mr A. C. Stephens) for a breach of the Otago Brewers, Bottlers, Bottle-Washers, and Aerated Water Workers’ Award by employing certain workers as power machine workers and paying them £3 15s inclusive of bonus instead of £3 19s inclusive of bonus, as required by the award.—Mr Browett, in opening the case, said a dispute had arisen as to the meaning of the words “power machine workers.’’ The particular machine upon which these men were engaged was a bottlewashing machine, and the question for his Worship to decide was whether this was a power-driven machine within the meanmg of the award. He understood the defence claimed that these men were bottlewashers and not power-driven machine workers. He did not claim that this class of work called for any particular skill, but it was merely desirpd to obtain an interpretation from. the court.—Evidence was given by P, H. Kinsman (an inspector of factories), L. F. Evans (secretary of the muon), and one of the employees concerned. Mr Evans said that under (he old award these men had been paid the higher rate, and when the new award was under negotiation this particular point had not been raised because the' union considered that the employers accepted the view that these men wore power machine workers. — For the defence Mr Stephens called J. G. D. Dempster (manager of Messrs M‘Gavin and Co.), Wm Alexander Gibb (accountant for Messrs Powley and Oo.), and Charles A. Wilson (acting manager of Straohan’s brewery), all of whom stated that they regarded these men as bottlewashers assisted by a machine, and they were paying them accordingly.—ln addressing the court, Mr Stephens contended that the award had to .be construed, according to the literal meaning of its terms, which said that a machine-worker was one who worked a machine, not one who merely worked at a machine. Referring to previous awards, he stated that these men were , described as bottle-washers in 1915, and if that were so, then they were still bottle-washers—His Worship announced that he would reserve his decision.