CIVIL/BUSINESS.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 131, 26 February 1908, Page 4

CIVIL/BUSINESS.

(Before Dr.. M'Arthur, S.M.)

■ UNDEFENDED- CASES- ' . Judgment,was; given 'ior ! - plaintiff'; by <&•='• fault ill the following' undefended cases:— Hanks s Co-operative Meat Distributing Company. Ltd., v. Stiiiley Lurford,'£s 18s. 8d„ 6d.j James Izott v. Mary.Pyko, rt m ' c 9 s ' s £6 .85..6 d. ;. Jean Munro v,' Cecil Goulds, £6, costs' £1 3s. Gd. -'Hum- ' phries Bros;,, v., Mary Scarlett,' £3 17s. Cd., ' ; cost? . 10s.Dominion" .:Merian|ik Agency, xhoni&s ardell, arid. '-FrGd.-R, Raynorr v William H. . Allen, £3 2s. lOd','. costs 55.-V •samo y. Jamps T_. 'Cogbill,'£3;2r) 6d.;"touts' , ,10s. j Stewart Tiibbor, Glass',, and.iHardwara Co., .Ltd., v.!Charles.Hill,. £15 15s.'; "H. Osbbrn'p.'.and Co.. v.'; George Plimmer,. £5:55.,. tosts £1 3s:;6d>, Cj.A.; JViltoh v. E. tegge, £5 18s. 4d,,,'costs £1' 4s. fid. George Doughty and '.v. Public Co-operative, Society . ; 6f r No\f.Zealand, Ltd.", ' £17 18s. 9d.,' costs ,£1 10s. Gd.; Wise^and,' Deoblo, v. Alec Sammons, £10 14s. 7d., costs' £1 lis. 6d.; Gordon; and Gptch Proprietary, Ltd;, v. Georgo .Washington van Slyke, £2 105., r costs 103.; .Wise and;Docblo v. John M'lntosh,. £2.85. 6d.,':cttsts.'ios;*'.,. "j' v.JUDGMENT SUMMONSES ~ , In tho case of George P. M'DougallV.-Jofm lofts, a debt of £3 Gs. 3d., debtor was-or-dered to pay.;on or . before March-10, r m- d». fault ;three : days' imprisonment. ' No orders wero made m the cases' of - tho' Wellington'.Loan Co., Ltd., ■ v.'' George; -I.- : Morris,-a debt of-.£15 6s. 9d.; -ITbiuiia- r t Robertson v., Henry J; Jenner, £32 os'f and John Rod -vj- William- H. Davis, £10 Is. Gd.

DEFENDED CASES. --Y . Edward. Thomas Evans .claimed £i 0 from * the , "New .Zealand' Times" Company,"''Ltd. ' (Mr.. Blair), v - . : Tie. plaratiff 'said'that' isjje'' claim' '-waifor - wages in lieu : of one month's notice. He ' had boon encaged as Hutt and Petorib' re- 1 ' , ( porter, and had worked 7 for-'tho'' paper i- for twelve months. " He had recently received ' ; notice ■ that as-lithe; paper's' country"- corres-J" pohderits weiV.beinj? rb-arranged'/his sertricea would ; hot; bfejequircd/f, Ho ! submitted;'that 1 - '• the J notice ! giv;on -Iwas ;tdo' ■ shorthand- that' *' he was entitled to one month, which was the ijotice'usually given' in the case,of reporters.' '■ [ Cross-examined,' yrctnessj'sa'id .his. salary- :waa • paidv each' 'week.' :Hb ! Jwas- jlot'"meroly--'a local ; correspondent!'.' '' J.'l).: Seivwright;, ! ex-editor' of ; ''th^''-'New• Zealand Mail," gave evidfen'ce that-th'e'usual' ;V custom was for reporters in New Zealand- to ; < receive one mont-b?s -notice' of-.-termination of services. V ' • > 'V- •. Mr. Blair, for defendants,'; Said that' the notico was served o^yJanuary ®,: and took effect off February, I.' Hp admitted plaintiff • c should have received ohb'Week's clear notice,/. 1 and hor would' consehi to'- judgment-for £s':'. 10s., tho'amou'iit of one-week's salary. Plaiit»': : I till had been engaged only as alocal correspondent, whoso whole time need-not be do., : voted to his .-work.- • Evidence was also given ,byN. • M'Robio, 1 general tnanager of the "New Zealand Times." "• • ■ :"■ ■ . v. ■ ■ Tho Magistrate said as plaintiff-had hwn. • engagod at so much per week,- and not 'peryear, ho: could only give judgment for. oneclear week's wages, viz., £2 10s., /andcost's .• £1 7s. 7d.>

BREACH OF CONTRACT: ALLEGED. Walter Claudo.Dudley and William. Wyatt • • claimed £19-13s; from Harold Lockw-ood; \ Mr: Hiridmarsh,:foi\th'e plaintiffs,' said his . clients were bricklayers, -and'had: agreed'>to : : ■ i'do certain. work; for dofehdant' at Kelburno \ ■for a stated sum. Tho material for the work • was carted to' tliojobj.and after' about £0 : . > worth of work'' had '-been; done tho architect.. f had some dispute with ono'of'tho-plaintiffs' as to'the wetness of the bricks;'/.Words ;fol-' ■lowed, and tho plaintiffs: were-.ordered off the promises/and :werei not allowed' to coni■plete the! work. ■ The ' defendant'then ' used the material.' The • claim ■yips)for this mm.' , terial,' bricks, sand,'cement-, etc.;: and breach of contract. ; v. O, yj Mr; 'Be rveyj i for v the contended 1 that the work that had'been dono' had not . been properly carried out; that ' there was / no breach of contract on the part of defendant, and. that one of the plaintiffs had: misconducted himself towards the architect. De. fendant v had paid £6' into Court, but admit* ted'no'liability; '• r- .• • • His Worship gavo judgment for plaintiffs'' i for £11 45., less the amount paid. into. Court, < I and awarded costs £2 65,;. - ■■