MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22099, 1 November 1933, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Tuesday, Octobeb 31. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M). UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment for the plaintiff was given in the following undefended cases:— Islip and Watt v. A. M’Rohie, £2 9s 2d, for goods supplied, with costs (£1 4s 6d) ; D. L. Ritchie v. Nathaniel Luther James Cowie (Arrowtown), £2 4s, for professional services, with costs (£1 3s 6d) ; Butterfields, Ltd., v.- Elizabeth Baigent, £lO Is 6d, for goods supplied, with' costs' (£2 17s); Arthur Bar nett, Ltd., v, Matthew Martin (Denniston), 17s Bd, foi goods supplied, with costs (8s). ORDER FOR POSSESSION. Charles S. M'Gill was ordered to give possession of a tenement to William Roseby Thomson on or before November 7, and judgment was also given for the plaintiff for £3 15s, being rent, owing, with costs (£1 10s 6d). JUDGMENT SUMMONS,, Cecil Victor Ghave v. Robert Bruce Johnston, claim for £ls 2s 4d. The judgment debtor was ordered to pay the amount claimed, with costs (£1), in default 16 days’ imprisonment BREACH OP APPRENTICESHIP CONTRACT.

Reserved judgment was given in the case in which Alexander Donald Rennie (Mr W. H. ‘Carson) proceeded against H. E. Shaddock, Ltd. (Mr A. I. W. Wood), on a claim for £285 7s arising out of an apprenticeship contract. The plaintiff alleged that hie had not been trained and instructed as a competent journeyman ironmoulder, and that it would take him a further three years to become proficient. The amount claimed represented the difference between what the plaintiff was able to earn now and what he would be able to earn as a journeyman ironmoulder. : —After reviewing the evidence the magistrate said that the defendant’s duty was to train the plaintiff as an ironmoulder; that was, to teach him both plate and loose pattern moulding, but ho held that the evidence showed that the plaintiff had had only a limited experience of plate moulding and none whatever of loose pattern moulding and so was quite unqualified as a floor moulder. A breach of the defendant's duly properly to teach the plaintiff the trade of an ironmoulder in accordance with the apprenticeship contract had been established, but the question arose as to the damages the plaintiff was entitled to recover. The magistrate was satisfied from the evidence that the plaintiff with his experience could become a qualified plate moulder in a few \seks, but he had no experience of loose pattern work, and would not be a qualified floor moulder. The plaintiff's value in the labour market as a partly trained man must be less than if he were a qualified ironmoulder. It was also contended by the defendant that 'he plaintiff had suffered no loss as he had been trained as a special core-maker and that the wages of such a worker were the same as those of an ironmoulder. It was to be noted, however, that the openings for special core-makers were very limited. The defendant at present employed only one Core-maker for 10 moulders and two for 30 moulders. Bren if the plaintiff were fully qualified as a special core-maker there would be a more restricted market than for an ironmoulder. The plaintiff was entitled to compensation for loss suffered by the defendant’s breach of the apprenticeship contract. The assessment of damages was a difficult one, dependent on the plaintiff’s reduced earning capacity as compared with that of a qualified tradesman. The plaintiff was offered employment by the defendant before the commencement of the present proceedings, but declined, ns there was no assurance of permanence of employment. In the magistrate’s opinion a reasonable sum to award as damages was £4O, and judgment was accordingly given for the plaintiff for this amount, with costs (£7 15s).