MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20690, 12 April 1929, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, April 11. (Before Mr J. R, Bartholomew, S.M.) DEFAULT CASES. Judgment for plaintiff was given in the following undefended cases;—A. and T. Burt, Ltd. v. J. A. Montgomery, claim £25 13s lOd, for goods supplied, with costs (£4 30s fid) ; J. Moir v. George William Purton, claim £4 Is fid, for goods supplied, with costa (fl 10s fid) ; Wright. Stephenson, and Co., Ltd. v. J. W. Jacobson (Tahakopa), claim £ls Is lid, for goods supplied, with costs (£3) ; EL H. Sykes (assignee in estate of A, E. Brown) v. Stanley M'Kewon (Christchurch), claim £4 15s 9d, for good supplied, with costs (£1 3s fid) ; Chas. Eegg and Co., Ltd. r. Aubrey Doaglas (St. Bathans), claim 6s fid, for repairs to gramophone, with costs (8s) ; British Electrical Engineering Company v. S. M'Ewen (Christchurch), claim £3 2s, for work done and goods supplied, with costs (£1 3s fid) ; Vacuum Oil Company, Ltd. v. J. M. M’Cutcheon (Mataura), claim £4 10s sd, for goods supplied, with costs (£1 3s fid) same v. C. Quested (Nightcaps), claim £2 12s 3d, for goods sup plied, with costs (£1 7s fid) ; Andrew Lees, Ltd, v. Edward Currie, claim £(i 18s 2s, for goods supplied, with costs (£1 12s fid) ; Sundstrum and Thompson v. S. E. Lloyd, claim £5 15s, for goods supplied, with costs £1 lls fid); Prapwells, Ltd. v. George B. Harneiss, claim £5 3s. for work done, with costs (£ll2s fid) ; J. L. Ford and W. R. Ford v. J. Suther land, claim £36 2s Id. for goods supplied, with costs (£4 Is fid) ; Otago Hospital Board v. D. May (Mataura), claim £29 13s 9d, for maintenance in Dunedin Hospital, with costs (£4 Is fid); E. W. Pigeon and Co., Ltd. v. C. N. Jopson (Wedderburn), claim £l4 Bs, for goods supplied, with costs (£1 ss>. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. William G. Rowlands v. David Jacobs, claim fl 0s 4d on a judgment of the court —The judgment debtor did not appear, and was ordered to pay the full amount, with costs (6s) forthwith, in default two days’ imprisonment. Ogilvie and Co. v. John Stewart, claim fl on a judgment of the court.—There was no appearance of the debtor, and an order was made for the immediate payment of the amount,, with costs (8s), in default two days’ imprisonment. ' W. J, Kelly v. R. VV. Brown, claim £2B 15s on a judgment of the court. The debtor, who did not appear, was ordered to pay the amount, with costs (£1 ss) forthwith, in default one month’s imprisonment. A QUESTION OF TUITION. / Reserved, judgment was given in the case in which Nelson Blackburn claimed from Messrs Smith - and Smith the som of £lB7 4s damages for breach of a deed of apprenticeship by which the defendant company undertook to teach the plaintiff the leadlight and stained glass business. The plaintiff contended that, whilst he had been properly taught the leadlight business, he had received practically no tuition in the stained glass work, and as a result of this ho had suffered considerable monetary loss. Prior to his Worship delivering judgf ment, Mr A. C. Stephens, who appeared for the defendant company, intimated that the company was now prepared vo employ the plaintiff, and incidentally teach him stained glass work. Counsel maintained that if the plaintiff refused to accept this offer, it was an indication that he wanted money, and not tuition.—Mr O. J. L. White, who represented the plaintiff, said that this offer appeared to b(> an attempt on the part of the defendants to evade payment of a few pounds damages, and, as a matter of fact, was consistent with the paltry attitude they had adopted throughout the case. The plaintiff was already in steady employment, and counsel wanted to know what right the defendants had to dictate where he should be employed. Iff delivering judgment, his Worship said that the plaintiff was Hinder a complete misconception a? to what should be taught in regard to stained glass work, since, to become a finished artist depended largely on individual ability and a long course of independent study in a number of subjects. The plaintiff had called no outside evidence, and the evidence for the defendant company showed that there was no scope for stained glass work in New Zealand. Moreover, if the plaintiff had had all the tuition claimed, he would not be able to obtain employment as a stained worker. If, however, he had had the additional tuition, it was admitted that be would be a more valuable tranesman if the work were available. “ I consider,” said his Worship, '* after a careful consideration of all the circumstances, that £6O is an adequate sum to allow as damages. Judgment for this amount will therefore be given, with court costs (£2 10s) and solicitor’s fee (£4 35).”