CHRISTCHURCH.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 4671, 15 June 1893, Page 3

CHRISTCHURCH.

This Day. (Before E. Curry and E. Dobson, Esqs.) Dbunkennkbb. — Patrick Faull, who did not answer to his bail, was fined ss, Is cab hire and Court cost?, or in default twenty- j four hours' imprisonment. I (Before K. Beetham, Esq., K.M.) Civil Cases.— Judgment for plaintiffs, by default, with costs, was given in the following cases :— P. and D, Duncan v. Body, claim £5 9s 9d; Greenwood (Official Assignee) v. Taylor, £2 163 9d; Gledhill v. Hefford, £2 10 s; and Beid and Gray v. Smith, .£1 14s 6d.— Trades Auxiliary Company y. Braids, claim £2 12s 6d for coats in a discontinued action. Mr Russell for plaintiff, Mr Cassidy for defendant. Defendant, after notice of discontinuance, had given his evidence on commission in Wellington, and plaintiff sought to recover the costs ao incurred. The document showed that the application to take evidence was made j before the notice of discontinuance. His Worship found that defendant had received notice before giving his evidence, and allowed costs, £i Is. — Padden v. North Canterbury Hospital Board,/ claim £4> 7s 6d. Mr Beawick for plaintiff, Mr Loughrey for defendant. Plaintiff, lately cook at the Christchurch Hospital, Bought to recover three weeks' i wageß, having received' only one week's ; wages in lieu of notice oi dismissal, whereas she contended she was entitled to one month's notice. For the defence it was contended that plaintiff was engaged according to the by-laws, which prescribed one week's notice The evidence of the plaintiff and the Secretary and matron of the Hospital was taken. The Bench held that the by-laws not having been presented to the plaintiff at the time of her engagement, and her attention not having been at that time specifically called to the fact that Bhe was contracting herself out of her common law tights as a yearly servant, she was entitled to one month's notice. Judgment was given for the amount of claim and costs.— Staniland v. Godding, claim 5s 6d, for commission on obtaining a situation. Judgment for plaintiff for ss, with costß.— Hopper v. Hancock, claim J5l la lOd, for bread supplied to one Lambert. Mr Cohen for defendant. Judgment for defendant, with co3ts. — — •