MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 24348, 12 July 1940, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thursday, July 11 'Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) Undefended Cases judgment was given for the plaintiffs in the following undefended cases:— New Zealand Insurance Company, Ltd v. William Franklin Bennett (.Green Island), claim £5 15s sd, premium .due; "with costs (£1 -14 s 6d); Young' Brothers v. W. D. Jefcoate, claim £4 10s, balance due'for .work done, with costs (£1 Us 6d); Simpson and Warrington v. Leslie F. Reid. claim 10s 6d, for services rendered, with costs (8s); Thomas Price v. G. L. Scott (Invercargill), claim £4 18s, money lent, with costsV(£l-5 S 6d); T. E. Mclnnes v. George W. Casey (Temuka), claim £5 3s 6d, for goods-sup-plied, with costs (£ 1 10s 6d). / Judgment Summons Hallenstein Brothers. Ltd., proceeded against J. Denton, claiming £2 3s on a judgment summons.—There was no appearance of the debtor, who was ordered to pay the amount due forthwith, with costs ,(6s). in default two days' imprisonment. r ; Breach of Award ■ The inspector of awards proceeded against Joseph Brown, claiming £lO for an alleged breach of the New Zealand tea room and restaurant .employees' award. —For the department, it was stated that • the defendant employed Donald R- Dennis at a_ dance held in the Town Hall every Saturday, paying him 10s a night for dispensing soft drinks and ice creams. The department alleged that under the award the amount should have been £1 a night.—Mr W. McAlevey, for the defendant, submitted that if Dennis were paid at the-higher rate he would be getting more than a waiter, a position which was never intended under the award.—The magistrate held that a breach had been committed, stating that the terms of the award were quite clear. The penalty was Axed at 10s. Dispute Over Wages A claim for £2l 3s 8d was brought by Wilson and Anderson, plumbers, who were represented by Mr R. O. Rutherford, against Allen Arthur Orton (Mr C. J. L. White), alleged to be wages due for work done.—The statement of claim set out that Charles Kenry Wilson, one of the plaintiffs, agreed to undertake plumbing workon six flats in George street to be paid 4s 6d an.hour for himself and 4s 6 a an hour for another man. to be employed by him. It was alleged that the defendant engaged the second man himself and paid him the award rate of 2 S 9£d an hour, so that the plaintiffs lost the advantage of the extra 1«, Bjd an hour which ■ they would have received if they had employed the second man themselves. The plaintiffs, therefore, claimed the sum of '£2l 3s Bd, being the amount due for 248 hours at Is BJd an hour.—Evidence regarding the agreement between himself and the defendant was given by Charles Henry Wilson, who also gave details of the work done.—Mr White's application for a nonsuit was refused, and evidence for the defence was given by the defendant and John Walker, the second plumber.—The magistrate said it appeared as though the plaintiff had misled himself. There was no contract or specific arrangement regarding an over-riding charge; the plaintiff was merely employed at an hourly rate. Judgment would be for the defendant, with costs (£3 17s).