MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 567, 23 July 1909, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Beforo Mr. W. G; Riddoll, S.M.) -. . A SHOOTING-AFFRAY. Tho shooting affair on board tho s.s. Putiki whs'beforo th»'Court, wken ; Alfred Binder was called on to answer .-'a charge,of attempting to discharge a loaded .KTelTer at one, Bernard Burns,, with intent te, do him grierous bodily harm.. Mr. O'Leary, »pje»T«d for the defence. Bernard. Bnrns said th*t, en July U, he was .omployed.'en. th« steamer, as ,fir*man. Tkat evening, .'utter, being ilewn the town,, ho re-, tnrnert-ak»ut eleven »'cleck to the vessel,' and went .to ,tie forecastle, to "turn in."' About tin minutes later aceused'eamo in and.wanted to fight witness, j and,, when tho lattor refused, struck him. Next accused drew a revolver from his pocket and threatened that if witness lifted his hand he would shoot him.

Witness j{ol l» l » ft'll* v ' l "' "WW'/ »'"'» after limy Imd olrni!i(l<!il for mmib inlntlle*, witii«m went to tlifl (lonr Imullhk to t)io deck, Accumxl. followed hlrn, find, while 11/CN*. WM a tabid Kcpai'allng tlifiui, wllliwrt bonnl the revolver «» off. Ito w«i«l wi d««lf, follower) by acnuitod, to look for lh«j captain, but, not finding him, ho walled tlll;,W)Mo of tho crow carno aboard, and Dion w>til forward, whon h« and accused■'cmmi to Ki'lpA again, Further evidence was itivori by Constable Tait, BorKonnt Kelly. Win. K. .1. Harvey, ooaman. and A. (I.i Wallace, cook, of tlm «,«. l'utikl. Accused pleaded not k»))1)\ rcMrvfnK ■ bin dofeiieo, find w/w committed lo tho Supremo Court for trial. Hall was allowed in .£IOO, and two Hurotloft of J260. ...■:.:.. IBM AND DISORDERLY. A young man named David Wilson pleaded guilty to a charge of '>«ing (in Idlo and disorderly person, in that ho hnd. insufficient lawful meonfl of 'support. Chief-Detective Brebwg stated that defendant had been loafing round' town for three months, his i aggregate earnings during that limo amounting to Us. Oil. On Wednesday ho hnd accosted a young man, and iviked him to help him break Into tho Blackball Con! Company's office. Defendant stated that ho hnd been living on his 'savings, which ho had juft withdrawn from tho Havings Hank. His Worship rematided dcfondant to to-day for sentence in order that Ills statement might bo inquired into, INSOBRIETY. . Three first offenders for insobriety were convicted and discharged. Hector Cameron; who hnd five previous convictions against his namo, was sentenced to one month' 6 imprisonment. CIVIL BUSINESS. '■ ' (Before Dr. A; ■ M'Arthur, S.M.) -, ' undefended; Cases. ; "V' ' Judgment for plaintiff by default of defendant was givon in tha following '! undefended cases:—Mary Edith Logan v. David FitzHowell Jones;' .£69 10s.,- cods £4.75. od.; Robert Sinclair v.-John Tofts, JM ss. 9d., costs 10s;; Harold Stanford v. J. Er Read, £& 2s. Bd.', costs £1 3s. od.; Palmier Engineering Co., Ltd.; v. Jdhn Tofts, £1 lis., costs 55.; the "New Zealand Times" Co., Ltd., v. the same, .£6, costs .£1 3s. 6d.; Commercial Agency, Ltd., v. Edward R. Issell, sen., .£3l Bs. Bd,, costs £2 Hs.; tho same (as, assignees of Sargood, Son, and Ewen) v. the same, .£l7 12s. 4d., costs £2, os.Cd.j Levin and Co., Ltd.,' v. Richards Bros., • £I. lßs. Id., costs .£2'115.6d.; Frost': and, Frost v. Sam Isaacs, .£3 18s. 6d„ costs iOs.; R.. A. Cameron v. John M'Manaway Giles, £3 18s„ costs 10s.; Cotton and Son v. Bert Woberley, .£ll 165., costs £\ lis. 6d.j Archibald Cameron Pearco.' v. William Bowman, . £11 95., costs £1 10s. od./ Wairarapa' Farmers' Co-operative Association; Ltd., v. William Frederick Hnrcomb, £G 155.: 7d„ ;'costs: £1 3s. 6d.; Ross and Glendining v. Phoebe Oram, i 139 Is. Bd., costs £2 Us.; Bhindell Bros., Ltd., v.' William John Young,' £1 4s. 9d., costs 55.; John Rigg and Co. v. J. Hooker and Co., .£l7 155..8 d., costs £] 10s. 6d.; John Paterson v. John G..Wilson, £7 165., costs £1 3s'.''6d. ; ;.. ;. -JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. ": : In tho judgment snmmons case . of '. the Stewart Glass and Hardwire Co., Ltd;; v. John' Moffatt,. a debt of £7 16s. 7d., tho debtor was ordered to pay on or before August 'sth, in default seven days'imprisonment. • '~.',.: : His Worship mado no ! order in each of. the following cases:—Empire Hotel, LW;, v. Dr. H. H, Monokton, a debt, of £71 05.6 d.; Morris Fruhauf v. Hugh Urquhart, a debt of £& Is. 6d;; Empire. Loan and Discount Co;, Ltd.,.'vV W. J: Jamesah George Henry Morris, '£& 3s. 6d.; Hutchison -and Campbell, Ltd., v. Stephen Tilley and William Dan's, : : J3.195. 9d. ; ; R; A; Cameron • v. James Dotohin, .• £3 19s. ; George Bradnock v. Arthur Henderson, JBI9 195.,-fld. .-. ;;. ■..: .'■ ■■■■■'v-'.'■;,/;■;:.; • ' : \\ :RESERVED JUDGMENTS;,;; - ■DISCHARGING OF SEAMEN.' : ; '■ :'..;;■■•■;'." v -A' TEST CASE.':: U;' ; •' Deferred judgment was given by JhiS Worship Dr. 'M'Arthur in the.case in;which the Wellington isection -of:the,Australasian:Federated; Sea'taen's'.'lndustrial .Union of Workers (represented by the secretary, Mr.. T. W. Young)'! claimed to recover'from the Union Steam' Ship' Co. of New Zealand, Ltd.. the sum of ; £ty;. aa a penalty'for.an,alleged.breach of a Coijrt of ATDitra£idri' , award, f "daWd;'April-:4, IDOB. ; , Following -are--particulars of the case:— Clause 40 of the award provides that 24,hours' 1 notice, to-PlSlvtf 4 afmssel Bhhll?b6';'-given "at', the final port of .discharge "in the {Dominion,', and,.contrary ,to that'olanse; the'erew of >the' steamsliip Mapou'rika, 'On; Friday I ,', Juno U, 1909, at \¥estport|>were given 24. hours' notice to leave the •ship on arrival- at .-.Wellington (the final port: of itne ship); and subsequently, on Monday, June 14, 1909, the crew were paid off without.haying received 24 hours'.notice at the 'final.poiti'' ' ;"' v .:;'. ■: r"';''- ; . The. facts were admitted by the defendantcompany,- and no evidence' was oalle'd.i ;'Thel purpose 'of ■'.the case was not for: the! sake of the penalty, l but.' to get ; the Court's reading of the'award. ■• ■, : »'•.■.'"; ; y ■:,::./■:■ '■■•■

~i The' claimant, said i his, Worship;. did not state. >;the exact words of .Clause, 40 of the av-ard. In' his. Worship's ppiniop, he.stated an incorrect.view of the meaning of the clause, whioh reads—"Twenty-four, hours' notice on either side shall bo the law of discharge at the ship's' final port of .dischargo in the' Dominion." /The claimant took'tW words ""at the ship's final port of discharge", to limit the word "notice." In his" Worship's opinion,, had. thatv 'meanings"been intended, the. clause- would hare. read, as follows:—'.'Twenty-four'-hours! notice, on either.'side .'at the ship's final .port of discharge shall, be the; law of' discharge." ..Had this been the reading, the claimant's .contention would,lave been correct.. To his Worship it appeared quite clear'that there was "nothing in Ckuso 40 which provides that the 24' Hours': notice must bo given'while, the. ship is at her final port of discharge. The notice, he; thought, 'might bo given before the arrival at; tho final port of discharge," but: the discharge' itself, must tako place : at-'the shipVfinal: port''of' discharge He. had ;beoh informed by both; parties, that if .the notico had i. to start, from,, the arrival- of. the-ship at her final port of discharge,-this would lead 'to absurdity in. the case-oi such steamers as the Maori and the Patcena; '■ It was'not necessary for him to enter into this phase of; tho subject,' however.- ■: '" ' '■ '.- , ; ■■. ■. In.his Worship's opinion;"no.-breach-of tho aw-ard ■ had -been committed, and, -therefore, -judgment-.-.must- bo given, for tho-defendant company.' : ■'. ■.:. ■'- .-.- ■ •''■''i'-;'' .; '"■ '.'.'■' i'■ V

:,''; A'MATTER OF,COMMISSION: ';,''' . Reserved judgment was also delivered by his Worship in the case of Aubrey Houston y, the Lux Light Company, a claim for .£4B 135., : for. tho work, journeys, .and, attendance of plaintiff,, performed for. defendants as, a commission agent in the sale of' certain articles known as Lux Lights. ; Plaintiff claimed that defendants .had-agreed: to.'pay. him .12}.-per cent, on the.cash selling, valtie of tho larger sizo, and 20 per cent', on- tho smaller .sizo, of goods. The sumofSs.'was also claimed as witness's oxponses in a Court oase. Theactual issue between the parties, was: When was the commission payablo? Plaintiff stated that it wis when the order was- completed, and defendant said that- it- was when. tho moneys were- received. ' The. evidence called, even-that'on behalf of plaintiff, went to show that, in sales under the hire-purchaso 'system,', commission was : not payablo until tho moneys had' boon received.' Plaintiff, his Worship said, was entitled to hjs commission as tho moneys caino in, and t!io postal-notes wero honoured, but must fail in this oase,, which was a claim, for money now due. ' Judgment would \bo 'for defendants, w'ith costs'. Mr. Buddie appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Blair for defendants. .DEFENDED CASES. ■. . , ANOTHER COMMISSION CASE.. \ ,- ' Fleming Laurenson and Co. (Mr. Lovvey) sued James Dick and Hunter M'Kochnio,' trading as tho Drapery Supply Association (Mr.W, H. D. Boll) for XGO, oiaimed to bo duo as commission on tho sale of a drapery business, effected through tho agenoyof plaintiff. . '■'. After a lengthy hearing, his Worship reserved his decision. ' ': . .' ■: (Before Mr.' W, G. Riddell, S.M.), DAMAGE TO A BICYCLE,' A olaiin for £1 10s. was preferred by Vincent Dentico against T. R, Fleming. Plaintiff stated that his son's bioyclo-and clothes wero damaged as ■ Iho result of a collision with n trap driven by defendant, and defendant had agreed to. pay half the damage. Judgment was for plaintiff for 10s., and costs Gs. Mr a Hindmarsh appeared for plaintiff,-'and .Mr, P. Jackson for defendant. .CLAIMS FOR WAGES. ''.'• •.'"'... Two actions to recor«r wagos-alleged to be brought against' Donald Graham, one by Geo. H. Uorpnii fer .07 125., and the other by Oscar Goo. French for i!2O 17s, Gd. Mr. Putnam appeared 'for defendant, nml- Mr. M'Grath for both plaintiffs. '..After a partial hearing of evidence, the cases-wero adjourned to July 27. ■:.-■=