MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 585, 13 August 1909, Page 9

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

' (Before" lir. 'w. G. Riddell, S4D

; OF INTEREST-TO;:fIACING" CUUBS;:: - : .\ EJECTIONS. FROM COUESES. : WEeserved . deoisica was, given, by. his Wor- : .- ehi'p,' G: ;Ei(ldell J ,5.M.,: ill the'case of . : Jas- Walden[. Jfoivthe. trustee'3'of the .'Wellilig-. . ton Bnotng', • Club(Mr.- Hi.; D. r Bell), ' v. 1 Daniel. M'leodr\Mr.V Wilford).' This- was •" a : case.', in. ;-wliich:' defendant/was*'. charged 'with, trespassing . onthd .i: Irentham[Racecourse' on July/17. ; Three} points [oijs'dofeuce; were.'raised . " bv ; 'cbiini'ol ; -'(lj' that - the [tetter authorising plaiiitiff.-iJVaMen T 'toieject;tototariakers- and un-, J: 'desiribles-from [tho-.course ,;wiis not .'sufficient; (2) that vthe'•.■Gaining and[ lotteries ' Act, 18118/. ( by 'giving .bookmakers. a /'recognised rendered (void resolutions: adopted-.in-'regard to '' them bv •the.raiiing club' in. 1906; (3) that de•fondant Ciras not "a.: bookmaker; .;His'Worsh,ip f overrule© the, first;: defeiice, ; fholding.'that previous, eases, had laid it'down that a letter irom ' : - the'secretary .of &' club was'sufficient authority- ■ for.: the ejection of- undesirables from,[the cours3, at tho'jdiscretion 'of the [person soVauthoris'ed.- . So fir ■ as the seoi'nd objection .Hv'as -his/Worship held that, the argument -was ijn- . ■ ebuiid/No doubt/there had been" some' changes' niade '.by'^tho , : : l^gi3latur'e.':.invithe:'stiitus ; ; "of; • :■bookmakers,-'but ; any ;effoct .that .auch legislation ■[ could ' havevupon ;'resolutions 'passed by 1 '■'.the>, racing, clubs .'only applied to such, booki . ' niuicer? as/had, received ~ a' Special perniit': to',ply.' theirf,cnUiiie. 5 : Any'.'bo'olcuiakef '' who. had'' ' - not; received such a 'permit ..would still, be-.af-/ . footed by the resolution. In regard to the •• third'defence—that ,defoiidant .was.-not a book--1 maker-rUiey bdd, -said his.'.Worship,, only,,his ' own word for this,' and ha admitted,' that lie ' ; had' lieon 'actiiig, as. a;;bb'okmaker upi till'-six-. ,' mouths, ago.- .Against. 1 this, toy. ;had the evi- ' .deiice . of-, tho .racecourse ; detectives . that ~de-; . fendaiit was. a bookmaker. -Further, he' was ' under tho .influence' o{ liquor, , and:,was thercr. "'.'foreJ'iau .'.undcsirablo >■. person!. - . , r ■ > Defendant must be ..convicted . and fined 405.; -Vond costs.<£i:l-25.,/iu\ default seven .days', im--prisonmcut,. . ~'. ••'■ ; CASE OF THE'KETCH EONA. ■" "UNUSUAL, BUT SERIOUS." •" .Sebastian Newson was prosecuted ,'on two ' : charges of committing breaches'of the Shipping , and Seamen's Act (l)'in'sending n Britikh ship, , ... to wit, the .ketch Bona, to sea. in such an un- ,•;/' seaworthy state, that '.lives were/'likely. to be : endangered;-(2)' in : being;' a '• jiarty 1! , to , the . -sending to sea of the vessel. The informations •were-laid' by' : Mr. ,C...5.' Nixon,- Collector,of .Cus- t . •' toins... Mr. •-;Mydr's,V;ippear,ed : ':. for. tho'jirosejiif-. , tion, iind Mr. Herdman for ;the defence.;;'. 5 ■'Sir. Myers -said that, the charge was an • unusual but a.serious one. -.-The ketcli•■belonged to a' Mr. Ensso, : b'ut had been chartered by 'de-I fendaiit nnd'jnnothor to .'go, to,rPallisgr' Bay for: . the purpose of salving the Ben Avon. De'fen- 1 ,dant had made all-arrangements with the man ' . 'in chiu'ge 'of'-the Eo'nh.' That man; was not an' able seaman, but they were' not' prosecuting defendant for , that. ;, The' vessel.Vwas ; ' leaking. . when she left p'ort, : and the crew were busy baliiii.' her out all ,the time. . She foundered; at Pnlliser .Bay;'fortunately after the men were; .' ashore. . 7 i.'fV : ..,'';-'/V. . • : Evidence ,was then given-by Chas. Stafford , •'Nixoii. to ' the effect . that ? the Eona : had :not ' ,6eci\red '.a clearance froni."th'e Customs'for. any voyage whatever. ■ !• Ciiiis. Whipper, . able s seaman, .who was in ciinige- of (he vessel,-''said .that;.she' was'--.hot. - fit to go to; sea at all. .All the. way. round to. ■PailiMT Bay the'.crew h'ad. to keep baling her ': out. ,:The pump'was.not ,in-order.' . . i. ''.' Fnrther evidence as to the alleged, unscaworthy state of .the vessel was given by [other. ' meml.>s)-s of the crew'.; ;'•[ ' Dufendiint-; pleaded,,not guilty; and was com- ■ . milled to .the Supreme .Court - fortrial, .bail; being allowed iri; .-650 and; one surety .. [! THEFT. .' ;' ' Bartley Manning, a young man charged with, the. theft, on August. .11, of 3s. 3d.,, the pro--pei ty of Chas. Thorp,' was convicted, and ordered to'"'come up''for[ >sentence .when called ' upon.:" ' - .' ■ • ALLEGED THIEVmG., The charges, against Wm. Howard and Win. Jno." Nomdri' were proceeded with. ; They ' were jointly- charged'.with,, the theft ,of one cask'of nails and .17. sheets of iron,-valued at £3 155., the pfoiierty of -Stewart and Co.. •Accused ■ Noman, for whom: Jlr. Da appeare<l; •had pleaded guilty, and had. stated m endcnce : that he had obtained-the 1 goods; from acoused Howard, who -was-ft storiman, employed by '•Stewart and Co. Howard,, who was defended by Mr., -Meredith, denied the charge, saying

.that, tho.only. iron.he had,ever given, to lonian had • been, waste packing. • ' His Worship dismissed tho case against Howard and convictcd Noman, fining, him. 'JES, and costs 205., in, default 14 days' imprisonment. ■In another case against Howard, wherein ho was' charged .with the ' theft" on, July . 1 01 iv quantity of carpcnters' tools, valued at 11.'.. the property of Stewart and Co., ft remand was grafted to 'August 14, bail being allowed defendant in .£5 and one surety.

CIVIL BUSINESS. ' (Before Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M.) . Judgment for plaintiff-by'default of defendant was given in tho following undefended oasosChas. Hill and Sons v. Wilson Himia, ;£2,' costs -235.; .Wellington Gas Co. •v; Kelson ' Jllingw'orth, 175., 6d.,' costs 55.; H. G./Gibbons and Co. v. Gordon Morley, i!9-55.-4d., costs 235. ; Cd. ' ■ •' ; JUDGMENT SUMMONSES; .•In tho judgment summons case, 'Ei-.Hojnwn and Co. v. i-Ernest J.. August,' a 'debt of *1= 17s. . 6d„ debtor was' ordered; toj pay on or before August 28 the balance, of £9175. Gd., .in default" seven .days''imprisonment.' , . '•"'No.'orders were made in each of tne following cases;—Blundell 'Bros., Ltd.,-v. Wihnot. .C. 'Quinnell,/,a debt-of 7s. .Gd,; samo.yv same defendant; a debt of JZlir John Girlaud v. Edward H. Eton, a i debt 0f.£9,95. 6d.; R. A. Ca'nieron v. Juo. M'Maiiaway Giles, a - debt of. 1 jj4',lss. ' ;; A DRESSMAKER'S 81LL,..;. -. The sum of .El 2s. was claimed by Ada Oliver (Mr. P. Jackson) from Viola Cimino (Mr. ...Fitzgibbon) for dressmaking done. , Defendant alleged'that the costume when finished ivas a misfit, and very'unsatisfactory, and she, -therefore, couutcrcl.aiined for .£1 lfe., value of. tho material, which she, stated had been spout in making up. His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff on, both claim and counterclaim, with costs. • CLAIM' FOR PROCURATION FEE. V Arthnr-Lavell -Duncan- (Mr. Blair) claimed ,£ls from John Duncan Brown, dairy-farmer, of Koputarua (Mr. liothenbefs). Tho-sum was. alleged to bo duo as procuration fee on a loan of 'JfilSOO,' procured -by'■-plaintiff'-tar-defendant at his :-request. . ,llis Worship;. garp judgment 'for .defendant, with costs- (SI Is.). y. i INDUSTRIAL CASES. j ' lUNCH/FOR TEAROOM GIRLS. Reserved decision was given-by his Worship Dr. M'Arthur : in, the industrial cases wherein the inspector, of awards prosecuted Messrs.* Kirkcaliiie anij Stains, Ltd., for a number of alleged breaches. of awards. . .- : ,-P-lai-iitiif 'claimed-; to. the ,sum of £10 a3 a penalty' for a breach' 'of ■'the- -Wellington Cooks' and Award,, in that defendants being-''a' company upon 'which tho said award -.wis* binding- diu -not,' during the -.months of April, ' May, June,.;and , July, 1909, provide meals free-.of chargo for workers in the coin-' -pany's" restaurant, Wellington, during tho hours'such premises, wero open for business.- • -Plaintiff also'--claimed /JJIO as. penalty for 'another allege"d-'brcach, j iri"that the'defendants did not, .duriug the . same months, allow half an hour for each meal to ; such.workers jn tho said restaurant; 1 . • The breach complained of, said his Worship, related-to'Saturday, when the. defendants' pre- . mises. are/ closed'-.for 'business' at .1, p.m. The question Should tho defendants under the award provide'a meal on Saturday for the employees 'of the' tearoom ? . His; Worship assumed, what he .considered to .be a/fadt shown in, -evidence,' that' huich was : not> provided' on Saturday; .' He-' was not' in-' (luenced by the wish, of the girls to go without /lunch, if-'that was their wish. Ho pur,"posed", to • decide."the question-as a'bare matter, of -law. '' ■ , ,

In'tie Decisions, and Interpretations.'of the Court; of . Arbitration (column 38), _ 'said his-•Worship,-there is reported, a • question put to the .Court,: "and the Court's answer thereto. In ths'answer, it was stated that if a restaurant provided supper 'for the public,- and -girls- were .employedr to assist in serving that', lueal, '.their they were"entitled to' be supplied'with ■that meal free of-charge.---—■ '■ ..Counsel' for . the .plaintiff relied- on this ni'terpretalion as applicable . to 'the, presort-cpse, trad:governing it. -It would appear an analogythat, if a tea-room provides .'liinch for the .public on Saturday, and'.'girls are' employed ,:to assist in servirtgythathueali. then the, y ur<) Entitled. to : bo silpplied* with' that' meal, free,, 'of charge." . The answer, however, - had • reference ' to/'workers who - were "lodging" with-the employer!:':.'. If theJgirls ;ih the present..ease lodged untVthe'. employer on : . tlie premises, find served luholi on Saturday, his Worship took it that they' would be entitled'.to that lunch. free :of charge,• even ''-though.' the premises closed to -business!.at l '.p.m. Y. The girls,} however; did 'apt lodge with their employer.' ;)The. week's work was donc'.at'.l' p.nit,' and: they- to their-.own' homes'.'-.ln' his Worship's opinion, tho analogy failed on tho ground stated,'and tho girls '.wei'e':hot...cutitled. to ; lunch on- Saturdays. : -"Let usiapproach tho subject from'another ,point', of'.view,?/.his; Worship .■continiiert.,r On ordinary weekdays; excepting, the. Saturdays, , a full day, was! worked, and, tho .'girls..-were, .ontitled to," and received, lunch. They did not -receive - meal-: when. tho. day s woit.was aver: '-' Oh. Saturday they .worked' a ■half'day,- ; ahd then ceased.. What .was-there to 'entitle ' them' to r a moil.' free of 'charge. eHlier -during that half..day, or.at its close? lil his opinion there had been no breach of the; •award:,:. Judgment would therefore bo: f ofthe defendants , : . " - . As'-the second', alleged brenoft' also-'had re* fereiice to the. lunch on.-Saturday, the- same decision held :there, also. v- -i -Mr. Pindlay ; appeared. fori the -prosecution .and iMr.-_Hei;dmnn ,for ( the defence. Costs i£2 2s. 'wcro allowed defendants. DISMISSING A COOIC,'. Plaintiff ifurther-claimed to'recover from de-' rendants.the sum,'of JSlOvas a penalty.for an alleged breach-of tit©-- Cooks I '''and;; Award,' .1908,. .in that the defendant company being a company bound by. the said i njvard, duHng'tlie. peribd'from February to 1909, ■employed' one; Mrs. Good in: their. restaurant,: -Wellington, as head' cook (female), -and paid ■-her.only: 30s. per week, instead of .<£l. 15s. as required'by the said award. "' ' A similar penalty ivas '/also claimed for a "further alleged breach of the award in' that the defendant company,- 011 July 10, 1909, dismissed' Mrs. Good from its employ becauso she w'as'en- 1 titled to. the,, benefit of the said award, con-' trarj-. to• tlie provisions, of Section' 100 i of .the. Arbitration Act. ' .... - . .. • . - The sum of -£a was also claimed by .plaintlll: from Eliza Good as a penalty for aa alleged bi-each pf the award,' in that sho accepted £1 10s.- per; week wages instead' of il- 155., the award wage. . In his Worship's opinion, Mrs. pood was head cook. ' No' matter what Miss Teiidall was-en-gaged asi: and no matter, what powers of dismissal and appointment she had, his .Worship had to : decide-the;-question on the duties .per? ''formed. Miss Tendall may have done,'and: ■probably did do, on very rare occasions, some slight amount of. cooking, but nothing like .what- wduld. warrant ■■'Mr. being- -called' head ■cook; During Mrs. Good's time; stated.-' his Worship, and in that time.'Miss Tendall'was absent on leave for a month, Mrs. Good was head cook. Sho received instructions as to- the menu from. Miss ' Tendall, and she . oarribd out her duties in respect thereto. She was Vehior to the others in the kitchen, amongst ' when there, was no distinction- as to wages. In reference'to the second'breach, his Worship was pf opinion that Mrs. Good: was dismissed: merely, becauso she t y% entitled to the benefit of th 3 ' award, or, to use Miss ,Tenda'll's woTds, because she was "at .'the bottonit of the ' trouble." ■ A great deal-of evideilcfe ivas called to show that Mrs. Good was. unsatisfactory in her manner of doing . her work,.'but .his Worship could como to no other con-' clusion-'than that sbo was dismissed because nhe was entitled to tho benefit, of the award. His Worship held,' thereforo, that the defendant 'company hid'committed a ,breach of tho award in each of the two eases, and that plaintiff %as entitled to recover a penalty of .£5 ineach case, and costs .£3 16s. Plaintiff .was also entitled to recover a penalty of -jßli and'-costs £1 6s. from Sirs. Good for a breach of tho ■ award in accepting underrate wages. . - ■!' '. ' THE "TEAM!' SYSTEM.; j : " 1 Another industrial case was that of- the Tailors' Union v. Kirkcaldio-and Stains, Ltd. The plaintiff'claimed to recover from tho defendants the sum of £10, as a penalty for abreach of the Wellington Tailors' Award, dated October 23; 1908. , . ' ' Following-aro particulars of the alleged, breach:— Distributing work on -what is kAown as the "team system"- during tho; month of May last, contrary'to clause 11 ,of the award, in tho employment of Miss'Cashman arid Miss Tho award, his Worship said, does not define the team system, and during the: case two different definitions- wcro given. Both had one strong element in 'common, viz., that under either definition a garment , is not completely made by ono person.' , There is a division of labour in tho making of' one. garment, and tho outcome would be not that ono individual would be a coat-hand, but that one would be o sleeve-hand, another a binder, ana so on;

Thus tho garment would ' not be completely made by one person, but •wrrald"'pass through several hands. Thero might, be economy of, labour in such a siystem, bat under such a system, no person would becoxae "a proficient coathand ■ ' '.' Y'' His Warship'could find nothing in the case before him to show that the defendants dis- ■ tril.ated work on tho teata system All that had beau shown was that 'during the month of May, which seemed to have been a very busy mouth, two girls gfliro some slight assistance to a coat-hand in order to get' certain work done in time. u IIe did not think this could bo construed into working by the team system. If the defendants mado this a custom, or indeed used such assistance frequently, they would, in th& .- opinion of the Court, be committing a broich of the award; but as tho casef was presented 'to him,' his Warship wasnnable to say<fchu'. a breich had been committed. Judgment, would be for tho defendants, with costs XI Is. It was agreed by' the parties that the same ovidence should be, accepted- in a similar case against one Garshwok, a tailwr in the employment of tho preceding defendants. It was this man who had been assisisd by Hiss Cashman and Miss Foster. For tho reasons stated in the-preceding case, his Worship was of opinion ths case against Garshwok could not succeed. Judgment , would be for the defendant, with costs .£1 Is. • Mr. Hindraarsh ap-' peared for the prosecution,' and Mr. Herdman for tho defence. '