BOWLING.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 48, Issue 14577, 20 January 1922, Page 3

BOWLING.

MASTERTON CLUB,

EJ A rink tournament will In- held 01 5 | Saturday and Monday. Tlie foilowiim g| an* the ton .ris: H Section 1. —McKenzie, I - .vans, IlayH craft, Hunt (s); Nielsen, Thirtle, Cole, I BJiukhornc (s); Welch, Cider, Ilolm- « wood, Hue lies (sj; BJewett, McCunS chie, Hose, Thompson (s); Wingate, £ Taylor, Guild, A. Hendry (s); Blanc, £ Miller, Jones, C. Perry (s). | iScctiou 2. —Cuinniing, Lett, Ewiug- | ton, I’igg (s); Stohr, Dixon, Webb, I Duncan (s); Nicholl, Mutrie, Beale, | CressweJl (sj; Maxwell, Bue, Spark l I man, Thurston (s); Murray, Stanton, I McLennan, Pragnell (s); Chamberlain, I Henderson, Prentice, McEwen (s).

DOMINION TOURNAMENT. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) DUNEDIN, Thursday. The Dominion bowling tournament was continued to-day, in perfect weather, the rinks competition being resumed on eleven greens. 5 Deduced games of 21 heads were again played, and by this means section play was completed according to program mo time. To-morrow the rink finals will begin on three greens on the two-life system, those with six or more wins to their credit competing. If players become available from the rinks competition, a start, will be made on the Dunedin green to find the winners of the singles and doubles. The following arc left in the rinks competition:—Henderson, Carswell, 8 wins; Tonkin, Cox, Pietcrsen, Ooltnian, 7; Munro, Maddison, Parsons, Burson, Harraway, .Stark, Piercv, Lindsay, Thorn, Watts, Kerr, Cooke, Clariclge, Balk, Payne., Robertson, Smellie, Thomson, (5. (By Telegraph—Special to Daily Times) DUNEDIN, Thursday. Tiie Masterton rink —Baskiville, Gordon, H. Perry, Kerr (s) have secured six wins, and is qualified to play in tho section winners’ games.

PERRY & CO. v. BROPHY. CLAIM FOR GOODS SUPPLIED. In the Court yesterday G. H. Perry and Co., Ltd., proceede against M. Bropliy, Masterton, to rc cover the sum of £lO 12s (id, of goods supplied and delivered bj plaintiffs to defendant. George Henry Perry, of G. H. Perm and Co., said Brophy had been workin' I on witness’s farm, and was suppliec with goods from the firm. Brophy wanted the goods at cost price, ant witness said he could have them or those terms, provided he paid his account from month to month. Brophy had not paid his account, and the law prevented witness from deducting the amount from Bropliy’s wages. To Mr Miller: The arrangement between witness and Brophy- was made at the farm. John Ackerman, salesman, employed by Perry and Co., identified the counter dockets. He had had no instructions from Mr Perry to stop the defendant’s credit, but was told to treat the account as an ordinary one. Mr Miller claimed exemption from the liability under tho Wages Protection Act, on the ground that Perry was personally the employer of the defendant, and was at the same time concerned in the firm which supplied the goods. Mr Free-held that Mr Perry personally, and Perry and Co., Ltd., were distinct identities. The section referred to in the Wages Protection Act was included in order to protect such men as Sawmill employees, whose employers supplied them with goods, and often with drink, thus receiving back all the wages paid out. He was' satisfied that there was no sinister motive behind the fact that Perry and Co. had supplied goods to Brophy, who was employed privately by Mr Perry in the conduct of a business entirely separate from the firm. Judgment would be given for •plaintiff for the full amount, with costs totalling £-1 2s.