MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 454, 12 March 1909, Page 9

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) Alight charge sheet was presented at the Magistrate's Court yesterday morning. ■■"A middle-aged man named Herbert Hartley pleaded guilty to a charge of indecency in Manners Street, and was oonvicted and fined £3, in default 21 days' imprisonment. ■ LAlbert Tronson and John Shannon, charged with insobriety, were both convicted _ and fined 205., in default seven days' imprisonment. Minnie Wolfe, alias McNeil, similarly charged, was convicted and fined 10s., in default :48 hours' imprisonment. One first offender, who failed to appear, was fined 10s., in default 24 hours' imprisonment. v \ ■; RESERVED JUDGMENTS.. * ; Reserved judgment was given by Dr. .A. M'Arthur, S.M., in the case Mabel L. J. I/aie, cap proprietress (Mr. M'Grath) v. Wm. Webb; cabman (Mr. Toogood), a claim for £H,105., amount duo for instalments and repairs in connection with the hire of a cab. His Worship considered tho ease was a mere matter of evidence, and, on the whole, tho Court accepted the evidence of plaintiff, but aSjie-possession of the.cab was taken on November I,'and considering the other circumstances of tho case, the Court thought-it rifeht to deduct the instalment duo on the date'on which re-pc-ssrsion was taken. Judgment woujd be for plaintiff for £7 10s., and costs £1 16s. \ ■■■-'■ .... Bis Worship also gave his decision in the case: William Webb'(Mr. Tqogood) v. Michael -Lane (Mr. M'Grath), a claim for the recovery ofypossessiou of a horse, and £5 for alleged wrongful detention, or, in tho alternative, the sum of £10, tho valuo'of tho horse, and £5 damages.for, the alleged wrongful detention. His Worship said that plaintiff went to 4defendanti and made- a representation to Birn/'oonoerning the condition of plaintiff s Horse. The representation was incorrect, ami defendant was induced to enter into an arrangement with tho plaintiff to hand over the home on a misrepresentation made by the plaintiff. "iThe Court did not say that the misrepresentation was wilful, but it was the inducement whereby the defendant parted with his horse. Judgment would be for defendant without costs. A \ ': ; ■' CIVIL BUSINESS. (Before Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M.) , ■■.' r UNDEFENDED CASES. ; Judgment for plaintiff by default of defendant was entered in the following cases: and Allan v. William Dmgwall, £2 15s; 7dr, costs 175.; Johnston and Co., Ltd., y.?F. V. Goddsrd, £15 13s. 4d.; costs £110s. 6tl:;■■•.same v. Edward Gerrich, £7 2s. 5d., costs £13s. 6d.; Wellington Tinware Manufacturing Co. v. Mrs. Evelyn Flood, £3 os., costs< 10s.; Joseph Cba-rnpck v.. Clanclo H. Mouhtfort, £3 10s., costs 10s.; J. O'Brien and Co. v. Charles Schultz, 205., costs os.; Ernest Upham v. Pitiera Taipua, £5, costs lSs,; C. H. Harris and Co., Ltd., v. William J.?Braniff, £15 25., costs £1 13s. 6d.; Barber and Co. v. Thomas H.. Brown, £5 4s. 2d., costs' £1 3s. 6d.; Wollerman and Co. v. August Nitz, 19s. costs only; Forde'and Co. v. Walter Booth, £3 os. 6d., costs 10s.; John Edward Butler, Ltd., v. Frederick M. Edgar, £& fjs. Bd., costs 55.: same v. John Thomas Mitchell, £3 135.. 6d., costs os.; Stewart Timber/Glass, and Hardware Co.,- Ltd., v. Tltomas Scott, £14 14s. Bd., costs 155.; Mirniriaf Council v. Ernest Edward Kdiriiinds, £1 Bs. Id., costs lls.; New Zealand IVmnufacturing and Importing Co. v. H. C. Patterson, £10 12s. Bd'.,' costs £1 10s. 6d.; Stewart Timber, Glass, and Hardware. Co. v/ CKiirles Thomas Easton, £2, costs 55.; J. B. M'Ewan and Co., Ltd., v. Campbell and Ross. £151 Is, 3d., costs'£7 ss. 6<t.: Empire Lbnn and Discount Co., Ltd., v. S. Hickson, £I]2| costs £5 165.; Charles William Martin x:\ Norton Ransen Smith, £2 14s. 6d.. costs 10s>; : Lyons, Ltd., v. Charles G. F. Eager, £4'165., costs 10s.; H. G. Anderson and, Co. r! James Rankiri. £2.155. Bd.';"costs -lOs.j same v. Thomas B. M'Guire, ,£3 125., coats 10s.'; Barber and Go. ,v- : John,G]eeson r Bd., costs■,ss:.ji-same Steel<y.'£2iosJ.lod,, costs 10s.; Palmer Engineering Co.,- Ltd., V. D! .Bell, costs only 125.; W. and G. Turnbull 'and Co..v. Charles F. Benjamin, £2 6s. 6dv costs 10s.; D. W. Virtue and Co., v. Albert Thomas Almond, £7 13s. 6d.. costs £1 33. 6:1.; Jacob Harris and' Co. v. Thomas Burnett Hnrkness, £6'los. 9d.. costs £1 3s.' Wellington Plasterers' Union v. Joe Havward; £1 Is., oos+s 55.; Jamos Speieht - antT'Co'. v. Robert L. Henderson, £59 7s. Bd., costij' £3 19s. 6d.; G. and W. Dickinson v. Arthur Collett. £2 : 165., costs 125.; W. and ' G/ iTurnbull and Co. v. Mrs. Mary Adams, £40-35.. costs £2 175.; Robert Anderson v. John Giles, £4 17s. 6d.. costs 55.; EttieMacka/'v. Antonio Stuparkh, £4 Is., costs 10s.

>.;■•. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. In the judgment, summons case, Walter S. Mansfield v. Jas. Jeremiah Harrington, a debt of £3 Bs., debtor ways ordered to pay en •■Oγ before March 25, in default three days' ■ imprisonment. In'the case, W. Naismith and Co. v. J. H. 'Merrie,' a debt of £7 75., debtor was ordered to pay on or before March 25, in default seven days' imprisonment. Walter Sant was ordered to pay £3 17s. to <E. Reynolds and Co., Ltd., on or before March 25, in default throe days' imprisonwi'lit.^ In'the case E. Upton v. Wm. Grant, a fleoVof £2 25., debtor was ordered to pay on;[or before March 25,' in default three days' imprisonment. S.' Murray Grant was ordered to pay £33 2s. '6:1. to Jus. Stafford Adams, on or before"; March 25, in default one month's im- . ,prisohment. ■ ■ _ - No orders were made in the cases Liberate Meo, v. Matteo Bnbich, a debt of £11 11s. ' 6d., ; . : and Rouse Black and Son v. Alfred . Bradley, a debt of £3 10s. 6d. BREACH OF THE SEAMEN'S AWARD. lifHhe enforcement of award case of the ■WeljiEgton Branch of the Australasian Federated Seamen's Union v. the Patea Shipping' Co., the company committed a breach of .the award, in that it failed to pay the eeamen empjoyed on the steamer Kapiti witfiin the time prescribed by the award. Mr. W. T. Young, secretary of the union, stated that by failing to pay the men within Seven days of the time prescribed in the award, the company had committed a breach of clause 3 of the award, and also a breach of section 63 of tho Shipping Act, which laid 'it down that wages must be paid on the i first£. of the month, ,or within seven days thereafter, if the , ship touched a port at which there was a branch of a bank. The mea-were paid at Wellington on tho tenth of the month, instead of at Wanganui on tho eighth. The clause in question had been in .the award for many years, and shipowners should be thoroughly conversant with 1 it. ' Mr. 11. Renner, manager for the defendant, company, in admitting'the breach, said the? steamer wa» in various ports between thej'dato on which the wages should have becri"'paid, and the date on which they actually were paid. The sailors, however, were in the habit of being paid in Wellington, and so:ne of them expressed a desirejto got their money before the vessel arTivijd here. He could only admit tho breach, and' ask the Court to impose a nominal h'niS., Jfor the future the men would be paid' at tho first port reached after the wages were due. 'There had been no intention on the part of the master of the ship to 'commit a breach of the award. His Worship remarked that tho wages were , really 10 days behind. The Court would be .content this time with a tine of £5. * THE CARPENTERS' AWARD. TJie Inspector of- Awards proceeded against Humphries Uros. for a breach of tho Carpenters' Award, in that they failed to give preference of employment to a member of the union, by employing one Bert Rogers', non-member of tho union, when several ,■ unionists' names were on the employment, book. Defendants admitted having employed Rogers, who was not a unionist, but submitted that the man was a skilled staircase hand, a special branch of work. Mr. Peacock, who appeared for defendants, submitted thai the euus was on plaintiff to

show that there were members of the union on tho employment book equally able to do tho special-work with "tho man engaged. Every staircase-builder was a joiner, but every joiner was not a staircase builder. His Worship .reserved his decision till Tuesday next. DEFENDED CASES. (Before Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M.) CLAIM FOR COMMISSION. . John E. Butler Ltd., leather merchants (Mr. Young), sued Chas. Harrow, saddler (Mr. Montoath), for £19, alleged to bo due as commission on" tho sale of a saddlery business at Otaki, which sale;; it was claimed, was effected by the plaintiff company's representative on behalf of defendant. After a partial hearing tho case was adjourned until this morning. MOVING FURNITURE. (Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) . A case arising out of the shifting of some furniture from Willis Street to Kiioirme, in which Jacob Morris, tobacconist, Willis Street, claimed £20 from the Colonial Carrying Company, was heard before Mr. Riddell, S.M. It was alleged that owing to the negligence of defendant company's employees, various articles were damaged, and others were missing. Mr. J. J. MGratn appeared for tho plaintiff, and Mr. Aeave for defendant. . Mr. Neavo applied for a non-suit, on the ground that no negligence had been proved. The evidence for plaintiff, counsel contended, showed that- the loading had been properly done. There was neither a single act of negligence, alleged or proved, which saddled the liability upon defendant. His Worship ruled against Mr. Neavr. The defence then advanced was that a high wind was blowing and, before the • ropes wore removed, the articles had been blown off the cart by a heavy wind, and broken. If all reasonable care had been' taken the defendant could not be hekL liable. Judgment was reserved to March IS.