MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22205, 7 March 1934, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

TUESDAY, MABOH 6. , (Before Mr J. B, Bartholomew, S.M.) Judgment was given by default in the following cases:— /''Oswald M. Smith and Co. v. Joseph Hotham .(Matatoki, Auckland), claim £1 12s lid,, goods supplied, with costs (£1 12s 6d); H. and G. K. Neil], Ltd.,: v. W. Robinson (Blackball), claim £8 15s I'd;"good supplied; with costs (£1 10s 6d); P.'Fraser and Sons v; W. Keen (Ratanui), claim 15s Id, railage on goods, with costs (12s); Otago Fanners' Co-operative Association v. Arthur Gritsell (Gbaslands), claim £l2 17s 9d, for goods supplied, with costs (£2 16s). RESPONSIBILITY REPUDIATED. ' R. Powley and Co., Ltd.,' v. J. 0. Gawne (Timaru), claim £25 17s, the. amount of a cheque drawn by the defendant, and counter-signed by J. Brady, on the National Bank of New Zealand, Ltd.; at Timaru, payable to R. Powley and . Co., or order, and dishonoured on presentment.—Mr F. M. Hanan. appeared for the plaintiff and Mr A. G. Neill for Hahan said that this was a! claim on a dishonoured cheque, or, alternatively, for goods supplied. Plaintiff had supplied the defendant with goods, but the defendant now alleged that he was only acting for his mother and consequently repudiated liability. Plaintiff stated that the defendant had not disclosed the fact that he Was only acting as an agent. Plaintiff had always booked to him and claimed that he was responsible for the goods supplied.—Arthur David Henley, traveller for R. Powley and Co., wine and spirit merchants, said that on every occasion he had called at the Carlton Hotel he had interviewed J. C. Gawne in connection with orders. He had never interviewed Mrs Gawne in connection with business. Gawne had never told witness that he was only the manager of the-hotel or that his mother owned the hotel. He had obtained the order which was the subject of the present dispute from Gawne, He had heard that Gawne was going but of the hotel, and he had called on him,; and had handed him a cheque for goods supplied. Gawne had then told him that he was going out of the Carlton and asked Mm if he knew of any hotel, which might suit him. Gawne had not mentioned his mother as owner of the hotel during this conversation. The name above the front door of the hotel was J. C. Gawne.—Crossexamined by Mr vNeill witness said that when he called at the Carlton he had simplyi booked up / the order to J. ; C. Gawne, whose name was above the door. Where a man acted manager of a hotel he "usually' mentioned the ■; fact. Witness had hot: opened up the account with the Carlton. In his orders ;be -had simply followed the previous practice.— Re-examined,fitness said that the usual practice was to look to the licensee of a hotel for -The -hearing of the case; was adjourned (for a week. ACCIDENT TO WAITRESS.

Agnes E, Dickson 1 v. Anne :• M'Gavock, claim £27,2s Bd, workers' compensation; consequent on the plaintiff allegedly receiving injuries during ;the course of her work' as a waitress at the defendant's, private hotel. Plaintiff Bought to recover compensation for 16 weeks incapacity at the rate of *£l 12s Bd' a week, and £1 towards medical expenses. —Mr J. C. Mowat .appeared lot the plaintiff, and Mr C. M. Barnetit for the defendant.-—Mr Mowat said'that this was a claim for workers' compensation in respect to a period of some 16 weeks, total or temporary incapacity. .The plaintiff had been -engaged by the [defendant on July 22 of 1 last year as a waitress. About a week. later, during the course of her duties* she "was pinning on 'an had.,no but-.; a safety pin into : tbe index finger fof her left band. Some days later the' finger 1 began .to show signs of infection;; She; showed it to the defendant^.and was, given' some instructions, arid it was attended to. The finger subsequently became worse, and after a further period of five days the plaintiff was strongly advised by her aunt to see a doctor. She called phDr de Lautbur, who advised her to go immediately to the hospital. Plaintiff re-, i ported this to the defendant,■ and;went to the hospital, where,the finger was ; operated on the following rooming by Dr Martin. Plaintiff stayed in the hospital about a week, and left her employment * and went to • Balclutha, where she had resided ever since. .She had since been under treatment by Dr Frengley. Counsel said he understood' that Mr, Barnett was prepared to,admit the nature of the injury: and the period of incapacity.—Drs de LautOur and Martin gave evidence regarding the nature of the injury.—G. M. Lloyd and the plaintiff also gave evidence.—-Plain-tiff said that she had never had a whitlow oh the finger, but she had had a whitlow on her other hand abou,t 12, months previously.—lsabel Cook, Balclutha, said that the plaintiff had worked for her as a waitress during the slaughtering season. Plaintiff always Bad good health. She was at present again working for witness.—Annie Dodd said that the plaintiff used to come to her home at North-East Valley. ... She advised her to see a doctor.—Mr Barnett i said that the defence rested on' two | grounds—first, that no formal. notice j had been given to the employer as soon as practicable after the alleged acciI dent; second, that no accident actually ' happened to the plaintiff—that withm two days of the young woman being engaged at the boarding house she had a sore finger, and she had mentioned that it was -a whitlow.—The defendant, in ■ evidence, said that the plaintiff had 1 never told her that she had pricked her finder. She had said she had a whitlow. The plaintiff had told her that. Dr de Lantour had said she had a whitlow.— Cross-examined, witness denied that she had ever told Mr G. M. Lloyd (Messrs • Callan and Callaway) that she would ! pay compensation. There had never been any mention to her about a safety j pin having pricked the plaintiffs finger. The plaintiff was run down in health when she came to the boarding house.— ' Florence M'Gavock, a daughter-in-law of the defendant, and Mary Rearson, housemaid at the boarding house, also gave evidence supporting the contention that the plaintiff had a whitlow on her finger. The latter stated that the plaintiff had told her that when Mrs M'Gavock would not give her a needle to prick the whitlow she had pricked it with a pin.—The magistrate said that the question of law did not come in. Sufficient notice had been given to the defendant of the injury. The ease was purely on a matter* of fact.—Counsel fieri addressed the court, and the magistrate reserved his decision.