MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18615, 10 July 1930, Page 12

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

TIMARU, JULY 9. (Before Mr C, R. Orr-Walker, S.M.) ] JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT. Judgment by default was given m the folloting undefended civil cases:— South Canterbury Power Board v. John Brohan, claim £2/4/8, costs £l/10/6; J. M. Ireland v. T. B. Nolan, claim £3/11/-, costs £l/5/6; S. M. Brice v. Ray Johnstone, claim £B/1/-, costs £l/11/6; Same v. Stan Johnstone, claim £4/10.'-. costs £l/4/6; William Walsh v. T. B. Nolan, claim £2/15/2, costs £l/5/6; C. F. Nixon v. R, Munro, claim £l/15/-, costs 8/-; H. J. Washer v. E. McKnight, claim £B/17/-, costs £l/13/6; J. Gilmore v. J. Phillips, claim £ll/5/-, costs £2/18/-; J. J. Coffey v. Prank Price, claim £l2/2/6, costs £2/14/-. NO ORDER. Skenes, Ltd. proceeded against H. Arnold, senr., on a judgment summons for £29/9/-. Plaintiff did not appear, and on hearing defendant’s evidence, no order was made. CLAIM WITHDRAWN. The Inspector of Awards (Mr G. | 1 McKessar) proceeded against Me- i I Pherson and Son (Mr W. H. Walton), | ' claiming £lO for a breach of the ! Apprentices’ Act on the grounds that I defendants entered into an agreement I of apprenticeship with Robert Garven, I to teach him the trade of a motor - : engineer, and did fail to register the contract within 28 days. Mr Walton said that the breach was admitted. The Inspector stated that the circumstances were rather serious, in view of Mr McPherson having been a member of the Apprenticeship Committee appointed by employers to engage apprentices in the motorengineering trade. Every member of the Committee knew that he had to receive permission to employ an apprentice, and that the contract of employment must be registered within the prescribed time. On January 4 of this year the boy had been employed in the j workshop, and about a fortnight ago I he had been told there was no work Ito do, and was dismissed. The boy had lost his opportunity of learning the trade, and under the circumstances the Inspector considered the case was one for the maximum penalty. Mr Walton said that the facts were not altogether as stated by the Inspector. The boy was employed first as a messenger, and to do odd jobs about the garage. After a year of this he was removed to the workshop, and was kept there until there was no further use for his services, owing to lack of work. A number of other boys and journeymen had been put off at the same time. It was verbally agreed that the boy should be taught engineering work, but no written agreement had been drawn up. The employers were not aware of the fact that a contract of apprenticeship was necessary. The Magistrate pointed out that if there was no contract reduced to writing, there was no charge against the defendants. If the agreement had been reduced to writing and the contract not registered, then the claim would have been in order. Under the circumstances he advised the Inspector to take other proceedings, assuming that defendants entered into a contract and failed to reduce it to writing. It would then have to be proved that there was an agreement.

The Inspector then withdrew the action.

An application by Mr Walton for costs was refused, the Magistrate stating that the claim had been brought forward by a public officer, and the proceedings had been taken ir. good faith.