MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXIX, Issue 83, 13 August 1923, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

STRATFORD SITTING. The fortnightly sitting of the Magistrate's Court was held in Stratford to-day. BREACHES OF AWARD. T. I. Lamason (Mr Young) w&x charged with failing to keep a w;ages book in the proper form. Mr Mount-joy, Labor Department representative, said the book used did not comply with the requirements of the Act.

Mr Young stressed the provision in the Act that the form of the book should be approved by the Inspector. The book complained of had been in use for over five years and had never beeu objected to before. As no previous Inspector had made any objection Mr Lamason preimmed that the book was sufficient for the purposes of the law. The S.M. said there was nothing extraordinary about the breach. Defendant had taken an awkward stand when he told the Inspector that if the Inspector enforced tho provisions of the Act he would close his doors rather than comply. People in business should recognise that the Act made certain demands, and that it was the duty of the Inspector to see that, those demands were met. It was true that tho book had been in use for five years, and that it supplied certain information, but

the fact remained that it did noi) supply all the information demand* ed. For some reason or other this part of the country was not worried much with unions, but in citie* •where many unions were in operation it was highly necessary that the fullest details of employees and their duties, etc., should be recofrded. The Inspector also proceeded against the .same defendant to recover £lO for a breach of award through failure to pay the proper wages to a storeman.

Mr Mountjoy said the award laid down a weekly wage of £3 15s. Defendant had paid a storeman £3 5* per week, raising his wages later to £3 10s. Altogether the man had been short-paid £25 13s. Lama son said he had not agreed to be joined to the award, and would rather close his business than pay the wages. Mr Young said that the etoreman in question "had been a farmer and had had to hand his farm back to the mortgagee. He wag employed by Lama son in July 1928, when unemployment wasi rife. Lamason was aSked if he could'find a job for the man. He did not really 'want a man, but agreed to take him on. Lamason did not (realise that he was bound by the award. A rise had been promised and had baen given, and another rise now due would bring the pay up to the award standard.

The S.M. said this case drew attention to the Tact that proper books should be kept. If the proper book had been kept the Inspector could have found out earlier that the ,raan was not being paid the award rate. Sympathy and business never agreed, and if sympathy ■was brought into business it generally ended up in some sort of a mix up. On the charge of failing to keep a proper wages book a fine of 10s with costs 7s, and witness' expenses lie 10d would he imposed. In the other matter judgment would be for the Inspector for £3. FAMILY MATTERS. Lily Holmes applied for the issue of a prohibition order against her husband, William Holmes. Complainant said she had been septirated from her husband by order of the Court, but Bad gone back to live with him on his agreeing to have a prohibition order issued against him. Defendant denied that he was given to drink and said he objected to the issue of the order because it would interfere with his "business as a drover. He had signed the form of consent to the issue of the order, but afterwards recognised that it would interfere with his business. At the request of the Bencli Sergeant Dale gave evidence, stating that of recent years Holmes had given no evidence of drinking to excess. The Bench said the manly thing was for defendant to stick to his word, and he asked defendant if he would do so. Defendant refused, repeating that the order would interere; with his business." The Bench said that as defendant had gone back on bis word to bis wife and excessive drinking had not been proved no order could be made. NO ORDER MADE. In the case Archer v. Archer, in which an order was Sought for separation and maintenance, Mr Coleman (for respondent) said since last Court day Mrs Archer had leffe her home for several days without telling her husband where she was going. Also she had removed some of the. furniture from the ,house. The S.M. said that he had adjourned the case in order to give- an opportunity for, pome agreement to be reached, but this seemed to be impossible. In view of the wife's action* since the previous hearing he could not See that complainant was entitled to the order she sought. The older would he refused.

BY-LAW BREACHES. 0. D. Matthews wias- fined 10a and costs for lading a bicycle without «• light aiter sunset. John Wallace was fined 10s and casta for permitting eight working; bullocks to wander on Palmer Road. Defendant pleaded that there had been much sickness in his family. He had to spend a good deal of time m town and could not properly control his cattle. The Bench said defendant; should have leniency, but if all such excuses were accepted it would mean that everybody could have free use of the roads for grazing.

Herman .Ringer was fined £1 * or permitting two heifers to wander on a County iiuad. Defendant ploaded that his eyesight was bad and that he could not. see his cattle getting out. Inspector Spearman said defendant's cattle were often on the road. Defendant's fences were not good enough to keep his cattl© in. Hie S.M. (to defendant): You'd better get along and put your fences right. CIVIL OASES. i '.■'• ,/' . Judgment for plaintiff by default was given in the following civil cases: Gunderson axuj lastone v. J. J. O'Brien, £5 lis 9d, costs £1 17s 6d; Rawles and Rawles v. Wm. Cleaver, £2B 4:s 63, costs £3 2s; Smart Bro Sf. v. C. W. Frank, £6 7s 10d, costs £1 19s 6d; W. P. Adama v. T. W.- Discombe, £45, costs £4 10s Gd. In the judgment summons case R. H. White and Co.'v. J. R. Davidson, judgment debtor was ordered to pay £2 6s forthwith.