MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21405, 5 August 1931, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Tuesday, August .4. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) ; UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment was given by default in the following cases:—Hugh and G. K. Neill, Ltd., v. M. Tustian, claim 7s 6d, for goods supplied, with costs (8s); G. A. Rhodes v. George Davis, claim £1 12e 6d, for missing and damaged goods, with coetg (13s); J. Neilson v. J. Campbell, claim £5 10s, for goods supplied, with costs (£1 IDs 6d); F. and R. Woods, Ltd., v. J, J. Buchanan (Kurow), claim £2 4s Id, for goods supplied, with costs (£l 3s 6d); Royds Motors, Ltd., v. James M'Qucen (Ravensbourne), claim £6O ss, for goods supplied, with costs (£4 14s 6d); Commercial Trading Company (N.Z.), Ltd., v. H. M‘Gregor (Christchurch), claim £2 6s 4d, for goods supplied, with costs (£1 7s 6d)i Robert Dow v. A J. M'Donald, claim £2 Os lid, for goods supplied and work done, with costs (£1 5s 6d); E. W. Pidgeon and Co., Ltd., v. Stuart Park, claim £3 Is Bcl, for goods supplied, with costs (£1 os 6d); W. A. Scott and Sons v. John Edward Corby (Luggate), claim £2 14s, for goods supplied and work done, with costs (£1 5s 6d),

JUDGMENT SUMMONS. Drapery Supply Association v, Albert Trower, claim for £2 2s lid. —An order was made for payment, with costs (9s), in default two days’ imprisonment. B. R. Ferguson and Co. v. James vyilliam Pope, claim for £6. —After hearing the debtor’s evidence the magistrate declined to make an order. H. May all v. T. Lloyd (Scachff), claim for £1 13s. —An order was made for payment, with , costs (£1 Og 6d), in default three days’ imprisonment. Maiders Motors, Ltd., v. G. E. Wallace (Portobello), claim for £2 18s 7d.-—An order was made for payment, with costs (11s), in default three days’ imprisonment. CLAIM BY LAND AGENTS. Battersby and Co., Ltd. (Mr 0. Stevens) proceeded against John Rosenbrock (Mr R. M. King) on an account stated between the plaintiff and defendant for £jo on August 4, 1930, when the defendant gave the plaintiff an lOU for that sum. —After evidence had been given by George Edward Baker and Hugh Miller, Mr King moved for a nonsuit, hie Worship reserving his decision. —Evidence was given by the defendant and by L. V. Lousley (solicitor) .—His Worship reserved his decision. BREACH OF AWARD. Lucy Mav Hall, of Onslow House, was charged with failing to pay the award rate of wages to two employees, and with dismissing two employees without notice or pavment in lieu of notice. Mr N- r. Johnstop. of the Labour Department, conducted the prosecution, and Mr C. M. Barnett appeared for the defendant, who admitted the charge of failing to pay the award wages.—Mr Johnston stated the facts of the case, and added that Wie proper wages were paid after'proceedings had been commenced. —Evidence was given respecting the second charge by three witnesses. —Giving evidence. Mrs Hail said that when there .were only a few boarders in the house the two girls agreed to take lower wages than the award wages, provided the full rate was paid as soon as the bouse was full. The two hands dismissed were insubordinate, and gave her •mod cause for ipstant dismissal. —Evidence respecting the first charge was given by two witnesses. —His Worship said the first breach was more or less excusable; there had been a misapprehension of the position on the part, of the defendant. It was a technical oft°nce, which could be met by the breach being recorded without penalty. So tar as the dismissal of the two hands was concerned the defendant had not substantiated her allegation that the girls were insubordinate, and therefore they were each entitled to two days’ pay under the award. The matter of penalty would be adjourned for a week, and if the amount shprt-paid was then paid it would be taken into account in fixing the penalty.