MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 66, 11 December 1907, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

■ POLICE CASES. '■ /■ (Before. Mr. W. G.. Riddell, S.M.) ..' , A WITNESS IN TROUBLE. .Richard Kelaher, a . welMressed; younginan;' appeared .on a .charge to appear as a witness at . the Magistrates' Court, Greymouth, after having been sum-' v : : Chief-Detective M'Grath; stated- that, defendant had, been (summoned to, give evidence in a forgery charge at /.Grey'- ™ o ?ir-„° n eveiung, and was arrested in V\ ellmgton by Detective Andrews on warrant from the Grey on Monday night. Defendant informed .the police that he was tryanother man a good turn,- and said that , if there had ' been a boat' leaving for bydney. that; day v he would liave taken it. Defendant was reriianded to appear at Grevmouth oh Saturday.. / ALLEGED IDLE AND DISORDERLY. 'A well-spoken,' middle-aged woban named Margaret Webb pleaded-;' Not Guilty "-to a charge of-being an idle and disorderly person with insullicient lawful means, of supP° rt -; Defendant stated that sho.had a little money and. £10 worth" of. furniture,' and had been''working at 'intervals. She ' was not StrOng'enough to undertake heavy work. A remand was granted until this-morning to enable the police to make further inquiries into the circumstances of accused. ' TC.'/"IIiVT T' t \TTSAT»n

' MISCELLANEOUS. .•^ or . insobriety, Charles Sullivan was convicted and fined 20s.'; .in default seven days' imprisonment,. and Margaret Setter..and bteila laylor were each convicted and fined 10s., in default 48 hours' imprisonment, for similar offences.- One first; offender, who pleaded that he .had .had his first drink for soven years,, was convicted and fined .55., in default 24 hours' imprisonment for the lapse. : /' CIVIL BUSINESS. • ' -(Before Dr.'A. M'Arth'ir y SM.) ' ' SUMMONS CASES.

Judgment was entered for plaintiff- in the following cases:—Wellington Traders' Agency v. IheoUosia Edith Woodward, £10 lls> lid. costs £1 10s. 6d.; H. Oscar Beivett arid Co.! Ltd.,. v. Wm.'Williams,-Bs. 2d., costs- 10s •• George Thomas-and Co. v. Samuel Gillovitch* f* t S lj ' c °sfcs £1 ss. 6d.; S. Mayer and. bo., Ltd.,. v. Leonard L. Lilburne, £10 16s: 6d., costs £1105.'6 d.; Jane Darko v Daniel James Darke, £3, costs 10s.; Scott' andrCo. v,. John E. Blade and Co. £32 Is. 6d., costs- £2 lis. j Win, Lonergan v Joseph Mayer, £1 los., costs 55.; Wellington City Council v. Patrick Daly, • £4, - costs 7s ■ Commissioner of Crown Lands .v. Thos. M'Lean; £l-,125., costs 55.; same v. Ann Cot-fcrell-and Clara Cottrell, £10 7s. 6d:, costs £1 19s. 6d.; Angus Sanderson and Co., Ltd.. v. Henry Box, £3 14s. 3d., costs 10s.; Wellington -City' Council v. Jessie. Graham, £4 7s. lid. 1 , costs'os.';< Scott and Co. v. Wm. J. M. Attwood; £16 6s. 2d... costs £1 ss. 6d.; James. Cole v. Andrew Iv. Alexander, - £3, costs 55.; Lavina Studley v. Robt; John L'amplugh,- £2, costs 125.; Arthur Louis Williams v. Lewis Falconer Pulsford, £812s. 5d., costs £1 lis. 6d.;-D.'-W. Virtue and Co. v. Amo'sMudgway, £4 4s. 6d:, costs 10s.

JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. in • the judgment summons" case Edward Collie v. Thos. F„ Boyce, a debt of £3 4s. Bd., debtor was ordered to pay on or before, January 14, in.default three days' imprisonment. In the, case P. B. Watts and Co. v. Ernest O'Neill, a debt 1 of £8 lis. 9d. debtor was ordered to. pay on or before December. 13, in default seven days' imprisonment. ' .

.RECOVERY .OF WAGES. John Sutherland and Kate Sutherland a married counlo, sued Robert M'Giiire, hotelkeeper,. of Canvaafcown, for £11 135., being £6 15s. for wages alleged.to be due by defondant to plaintiffs from September 18 to December 1, 1D07; £2 ss. for one week's wages in lieu of' notice; and £2 3s. for the fare from Wellington to Canvastown agreed to be paid by defendant. The mitted that the /noney was paid, and that plaintiffs left of their own'accord. Defendant paid the sum of £2 6s. Bd., one week and one day wages, into Court. After heaving the evidence His Worship reserved his decision until Thursday. Mr. P. Jackson appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr. von Haast for the defence.

CONCERNING A PROMISSORY NOTE. The Wellington Loan Company, Ltd., sued E. Batchelor for the sum of £34 Os. 3d., a

claim /on n dishonoured promissory note, drawn by defondant in favour of tho Wellington Loan Company, and due in February, 1906. For tho defenco it was argued that tho noto was giVen for tho accommodation of " . G. Tustin, then managing director of tho company, and that ho had undertaken that the noto would be met at maturity, also that plaintiffs were disentitled to recover by' reason; of their own neglect. After hearing tho evidonce, His Worship said ho had little doubt as to the plaintiffs' right to recover, but ho would reserve his decision until Weeember 17. Mr. Young appeared for tho plaintiff company, and Mr. Bolton for defendant.

SALE OF A MOTOR CAR. *A claim for commission on tho salo of a motor, car was the ground of an action brought by Frank C. Matthows, motorcar agent, against Dexter Crozier, Ltd. Tho amount involved was £31 15s. Defendant claimed that'the sale.had not been brought about by, efforts of plaintiff, who had neither introduced nor concluded tho sale. Judgment was resorved until December 17. Mr. Weston appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Toogood for the defence. WAITRESSES AND THEIR WAGES.

SEQUEL TO A STRIKE IN A RESTAURANT. ' (Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) The claims of eight employees of an eat-ing-houso for wages alleged to be due by E. J. Searl and T.-P. Lyons wore.further considered by Mr. Riddell, S.M. The case was partly heard last Thursday. Tho plaintiffs and tho amounts claimed wore as, follow:— Leo De Laval, £3 17s. 2d.; Harry May, £7 Bs.' 6d. ; Mario. Musgrove, £1.155,; Martha Mekelson, £2 os.; Ethel Soper,, £1 7s. 6d.; Muriel Cahill, 17s. 6d.; Mary Finnaly, £2 12s. 6d.; and -Millicont Smith. £9. -Mr. Dunn appeared for the.plaintiffs and Searl, and Mr. Petherick for Lyons. T. P. Lyons, cross-examined, stated that tho complainants wero. all engaged by Searl, but he did not know what notice he was to give the girls. To tho Court: He was under -tho impression that he was entitled to sevon days' notice from, each employee. Continuing, witness said that there was a strike on' Saturday, November 23, and, in witness's opinion, it was instigated by Searl. On the Saturday on which the omployees loft, their spokesman came to witness arid said : "We ,aro going to strike." Witness replied : " Right you are." Ho did not want the employees to leave, and appr.oaclied some of them with the idea of getting thom to stay. He treated tho emplovees as ladies and gentlemen, and had no idea that thev were not satisfied.' Witness know they had been working short-handed in the kitchen. If tho employees had come to witness in proper form he would not have objected to hear their complaint. , To Mr. Petherick: It was not true that ho had engaged a new staff before tho alleged strike. '

_ Doris Lawless, head waitress for Mr. Lyons, stated that at a little after 9 a.m. on November 23 Mr. Searl came out of.the girls apartments, and in consequence of something ho said, witness said if tho rest of tho omployees were going she would go, too. Thoy wont on with their work until about 11, an'd witness heard that Mr. Searl wanted thorn all to striko. A certain mimber did not want to leave, but others wished to. .She understood they wanted to loavo Lyons in a ho!o. The arrangement suggested to witness was that' slio should wafk out with tho rest of the 'girls. At 2 p.m. she went into,the pantry, and saw. all hands standing in tho kitchen and passage with'Mr Searl and tho cooks. The cooks had their knives and' everything wrapped up ready to go, but the girls were dressed in their uniforms. "Witness went-back. to. tho dining--room, and when Lyons came through she said, to him: "Things seem anyhow out there; you had better go out." Lyons wont out, but witness did not follow immediately. Witness heard that Lyons was engaging new servants to-replace.'the.-,old Sear.l staff. She left with the others,' but'told Lyons's daughter she would- return. " When' the servants loft, the kitchen was in a disgraceful, state, and nothing, was loft ready for tea. r Catherine Cook, waitress in the emplov of ;Mr ; -Lyons,' deposed that'she did not knowwhy the girls went on strike. Thoy had-had no reason to do so. The trouble'had been brewing since tho Searl bankruptcy. It was m consequence of what Searl said that witness left with the. others. The girls wero under tho impression that Searl was "down,'-' and,.- Lyons was going to get his own girls. Searl told them that Lyons was. a terrible to work under.' Subsequently, witness ,saw that Searl was geft-mg a'" point" on to Lyons," and she decided, to go back, as she recognised she had made a mistake. Lyons treated tho girls well. Witness did not know of any meeting of the girls to discuss their complaints, and did" not hear anyone give notice to Lyons. : Cross-examined by Mr. Dunn, witness said Lyons accused Searl of being at- tho bottom of -tho trouble —a statement which was contradicted. After tho girls had to go into lodgings they , wero cross at what had happened. Frederick Stapleton, cook in Lyons's employ, stated that ho was engaged by Lyons at 2.30 p.m. on November 23.. When ho took charge at 4 p.m., tho kitchen was in a very dirty state, and tho pots wero all in 'tho: sink unwashod. Witness and others had to get things in readiness for tea.. ; Julia Guinness and Ellen Lyons also gave evidence. , .

; His Worship,- in giving his' decision, 'stated that, • so" far] as defendant Searl was concerned, ho : might' be put on ono side without comment. Tlhk only real defendant was Lyons. As far as notice was concernod, tho wholo of tlie complainants, with the exception of the manageress, were , employed under 48 hours!', notice,-and. should have given this notice'before leaving. Although there was a deputation of/cooks and waitresses to Lyons, as far as; the evidenco showed tho waitressos had no ground for complaint.' Some of them suggested; grounds of. complaint, but these tho Court held to be frivolous. Lyons was the man carrying oik the business, and the employees were bound to'obey his lawful commands. If they did .'not wish to do this, they could lcavo by giving 48 hours' noticed As. Co' Miss Smith's'claim, she had broken the terms of her notice, and instead of working seven days,she had-worked two. Judgment would,bo given for.her for £6 Bs. 6d., and costs £1 16s. Muriel Cahill would be allowed 17s: 6d., arid costs 6s. Miss Sopor had'stated that she had no ground for com-, plaint, and therefore the spokesman who approached Lyons on behalf of tlie girls had nothing on her bolialf. She must be held, on the evidence, to have given notice. Tho whole of the evidence pointed in favour of the defence, evidence for plaintiffs being of a flimsy nature. It was clear from the evidence of witnesses for the defence that may have beon Some dissatisfaction in the restaurant, but tho whole troubles apparently aroso out of the differences between tho two proprietors. Although Searl had' stated -that ho did not influcnco the employers in an,y way, tho Court considered tho evidence pointed the other way. Miss Soper seomed to stand on the samo ground as the other complainants, and it appearod to His Worship that when one went tho others followed. She would be allowed £1 2s. 6d., and costs 6s. Miss Mekelson's position was similar, and she would bo allowed' £1 10s., and costs 6s. Miss Musgrove would bo allowed £1 55., and costs 65., and Miss Finnaly £2 2s. 6d., and costs 6s. Tho Court was satisfied that May was entitled to £4 a weok, and ho would bo allowed £5 2s. lOd and costs £1 16s. Bd. Judgment would bo ont-ered for De Laval for £2 2s. lOd and costs £1 12s.