MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 3205, 18 August 1915, Page 31

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tuesday. August 10. (Before Mr H. Y. Widdowson, S.M.) Undefended Cases. —Judgment was given for plaintiffs by default in the following cases: —Now Zealand (Express Company v. Henry Joseph Keogh, claim 14s 9ci, for charges on trunk, and costs (ss); Mollisons (T.tcl.) v. John Murphy (Mossbmn), claim £2 11s Id, for drapery supplied, and costs (£1 8s); Official' Assignee v. George Jarvie (Abbotsford), claim £4 Os lid, and costs (12s. , . A Wages Dispute.—John Bice claimed 15s 6d for part of a week’s wages, and £2 12s, a week’s wages, in lieu of notice, from John M’Kewon. —Mr Irwin, for the plaintiff, said that the plaintiff was a carter, and had worked two or three days in a week, for which ho received only 10s on account. —Bloc, in evidence, eaid his employer to! 1 him on Wednesday morning to go up to Smart’s contract, and if there was no work doing there, ho had better knock off. When ho came back from Smart 9 ho demanded a full week’s wages in lieu of a week’s notice, but M’Kewon would not give him this.—Mr Callao, for defendant, said he admitted owing plaintiff 13s 3d, but he did not owe him anything at the time the summons was issued. Evidence was given by John and William M'Kowon, and by Thomas Farrell. The question in dispute was really whether Bloc left his employer of his own accord, without notice, or whether lie was dismissed without notice. Judgment was given for plaintiff lor the amount of 13s 3d admitted, and costs (Os). Thursday, August 12. (Before Mr 11 Y. A iddowsun, 3.M.) Judgment was given for the plaintiffs by default in the following cases: —AlacGibbou anti Co. v. Jas. Sinclair, claim £3 Is lOd, amount duo on account stated (costs 10s) ; Scott and Co. v. J. Williams, claim £1 10s, goods supplied (costs ss); Jas. Speight and Co. v. John Farrington (Gore), claim 5s 6d, balance duo on goods supplied (costs ss) ; Hallenstein Bros. v. Arthur N. Alexander, claim £1 12s 3d, balance clue on goods supplied (costs ss); H. Wise and Co. v. John Thomas D. Gunn (Raetihi), claim £2 2s, due for advertisement (costs 10s) • same v. Sid. Francis Amer (Marton), claim £5 ss, clue for advertisement (costs £1 3s 6cl); same v. Wm Early (Rangataua), claim £3 10s, due for advertisement (costs 15s); Brown, Ewing and Co. v. Edward Keen (Waimate), claim £2 10s, goods supplied (costs 10s); W. A. Scott and Sons v. Thos. J. Waide (Tarras), claim £43 19s 4d, balance due on goods supplied (costs £2 16s); same v. B. E. Harwood, claim 19s, goods supplied (costs 7s). H. Wise and Co. v. E. T. Tate (Uargavillo).—Mr E. A. Duncan made application for change of venue, in a suit brought for recovery of cost of advertising (£lO 10s), from Dunedin to Dargavillo, where the contract, if any, was concluded. —Mr Mooro for plaintiff, consented, and the order was made, and costs amounting to £1 6s wero granted to defendant.