MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 596, 26 August 1909, Page 9

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

. (Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) > FEATHERS, TENERIFFE EMBROIDERY, ETC. ... CUSTOMS PROSECUTION FAILS. ■The charges of harbouring uncustomed goods ■ (laid. consequent on the raid on the R.AI.S. •. fongwuo) were dealt with yesterday morning., \ A had ■ been issued for the arrest •of • . Wm. Jno. Pine, charged with harbouring 37 ■ boxes of oigars 161b; ofv tobacco)' 90 cigarettes, and ixvo packs of playing cards, valued at £3i 15s.",<but lie-had not been apprehended, so the charge could not ; be proceeded ; with. Chas. Mdnrir,. however, was required to plead to harbouring 11 overcoats, 65 ostrich feathers, and .lOjdress pieoes, . liable for duty and'valued at He was defended by Mr. E." J. Titz- , gibbon, .while ; Mr. C. S. ,Nixon, Collector of - ■ .Cufetbhls, conducted' the prosecution. Nixon, stated that defendant: was the bauber on board tho E.M.S. Tongariro, and the c00d.5; which ho was charged with having in nisVporeession, were found on board tho ves- - . great deal of wholesale smuggling was .' gdihg,;!oii,: and this was very unfair to. tho ' shopkeepers and-others who had .to pay duty, ' . rent?"etc.. The goods were valued at .£7l, and th#j{i(oro;thp C.usitoriis plight' ask for d penalty of->iß2lp,' but, as they were-asking for'a penalty of ; only ,£IOO,. he would ask, his Worship (if a Jconvidtion itere recorded) to show no leuieucy in inflicting the- fine.' - " Alfred Bacon, Customs officer, gave evidence as .to . searching the Tongariro. Prior to tho search, defendant,' in reply to a question as • ' *.; tO:'iinueclared: goods, ."said: •" Yes, I have some osttich feathers." After that witness searched the. storeroom, .and found tho overcoats and embroidery. .." Defendant, then told . him : that - the ostrich feathers '. were - iii his . room: To.; Mr. Fitzgibbon; "Witness understood that ■ defendant -was. prosecuted.; because the goods ■ were over' the' value of those de- ■ olared. ■ , •' ,; . i I'wo other. Customs officers gave corroborative evidence. ; ~!

Fitzribbon,' opening the case, said that he wished to protest against MV. Nixon's request that, •in the case of .a conviction, lemfcncy should not be extended. His Worship: Oh, you need pay no.attention'to that. • '. . . ' ' • -' : 'v

Mr* Fitzjibbon: Hft referred to smuggling as ,being.earned ojj■ wholesale. •There has been ?° »<jV.idenoo whatever that any of the goods In 'this caio. were sold. \ I think it was ..very ■ unfMr to defendant. His.Worship: So far as the penalty is con- ' ®®irned, the Court will.'exercise its owh" discretidn. ■ ■ ■ ■ . , ■ a Continuing, oounsel stated that, as might . be,', seen from 'the evidence. tendered by wit- • for the prosecution,- the ship's- barber earned ft very'varied ; 'a®ortment of goods, and was, m fact, a. general proyider. The goods mentioned in the: information-Were parti of his .■ B the made the declaration. IS? ?^'?u lnc^ Eded in .the general valuation of r°V,v. WJ 16 , 11 Customs officials paid their nr« visit to the ship these goods were in the par Dor s shop, but they were subsequently rtas ljas all' the; rest of.'the stoci:, to allow of the cabin being painted. When the . gniK returned to Wellington-'some, of the goods w' A een .to the. barber'/s shop, put the coats and Tenenffe goods' were' still V; I"'% •storeroom;; where they had been placed • ; i el j n 4 - ' P«? n fel drew attention faot that defendant had made six trips in,the fongnriro; and only once had the Cus- • torns placed , his stock ' under seal. On all ■Other,occasions defendant ha<j simply made a genital declaration similar to the "one made on-this occasion. ■Evidence was given ( by defendant, by Wilson . Graham, engineer; and by Julian Motfatt; fourth ■ offi.csr of the Tongariro.Defendant, in'- the . : ; conrso.°f. evidence,..stated tlfat ;he,valued the SW ,^ est , is; worth abont .£2B, and the rest, of his stock at; *22, making a total, of His Worship said that, ithough there was a nihfinV O "VJ. a^°at th®: case,/there ! was the point "f 1b J tl lt P">?€Cution , that two visits were 8 sh i p > aild o , n 'the first occasion' a S n §H Search not made. There was a ■ iajgo discrepancy between the values placed on the goods by defendant and the Customs, ( n ° ? s P® f t L evidence called to ' P B , Customs valuation: Defendant had merely declared for fiis.goods as a whole, and ■?£ ""^totef'.had--accepted;' this : declaration ' )h^° U li a i4" Jn i? —° r j a detailed 'statement, aa . rnere - not sufficient evidence to warrant ' ■ ■ \ ASSAULT. ■W&pHV O ' B ? ilty entered by Thos. Hel- - " and .i«' f„ arg , 6 °j as c sault . il1 ? Wm; Black, ctL Phr rt USI0? obscene lan-. lefauit was . fiMd 10s ' »» ,w ■ t hours, imprisonment, and for uslanguage a fine of .£3, in default 11 days imprisonment, was imposed. _ A MAINTENANCE CASE. • '■ ■ ;named Dav ¥ ;Tho3 - M'Gavin, ' ; SnS" ,WI W *«'' charged with failing .to mike provision for his unborn child. ' fl, r^uK OU ' °. n IJOhalf of the .informant, stated par i'f 3 A f omo to an arrangement, fW." 0 therefore ait ' that defendant to° r hv ma h? 5 w S ?P tomb ?. r !• This was agreed to/by his. Worship, who fixed bail in ac,:.ou6eds oirn.creoognisanoe of

CIVIL iiIJSINfSSS

■ (Before Dr, A. M'Arthur. S.Ji.); ; J'AND SUB-CONTRACTORS. : 2j§£i -P*. • M'Arthur, gave his re-' Hnttvfe'lT ! f th 6„ of Arnold, Bond. '\r % Ha £ d T? r ?r C , < ? ra I mn y' Mainland auti ?uS I?e re sub-contractors, and. the latter wages min, and they .'sued defendants in the priority of theirTi'ms ffiitt Goff Club, c f ntrad;nioM^ld th ® pliant club, held the ■ a2oi 14s. Gd., and the total'amount of c airns was,f336 10s. 6d.: The notice ,o Hen or on - bchalf of the sub-contractors were reoeived prior: to the-notices'of'the wages men.' judgment in the i %Tv£l S - the contractor,. Al! S \ n i PUrSUanTO of tfa at l w 'club was ordered'to 1 •'£££'''7' wa &* s J wen the amounts recovered out. ot anv money due, or becoming due. by tho club 'to. tie' contractor. ' The dub 8 was willing f?n£ a f;'Xi,- ( SU? amountsif it were absolved fro M.liability in so doing. Counsel for the subcontractors contended that the money in the <f tWelub mustbedevoted first t 0 : the Myment of tho liens and-afterwards to the paySavis.l : f rages - • mtn - ou ' * he otljer Imhu, ..SwA?® l . for ' the wages iU4n contended that thev haafpnority, and Section i of the Wages Pro. tection Act slatedr "Tho •wAges due ;to workers ;... shall : .'be a upon ' th «' money' « rac^ rs -' '■^■WS'WdrShip it'an. PSwad, perfectly that . as : between ,tfie ; and :of -the • wans CiGii: tho claim 6t tho latter was paramount. Ho agree :with.the contention. that because thg ; Sub-cOntractors: had got in'first they could deprive the of priority on the ground hioney,charged,by the sub-contractors vas-not,tiow','duo.:;to the 'fiontractor. .'Section 4 provided that the claims ofjhe wages men were patainonnt,. subject.to,{he employer's rights as mentioned in,Section-15,"'but these rights did not include the setting : off of.anj'-notice of lien or Sharge from a' Sub-contractor. 1 j judgmentLOf.;Burrell v. Clark the cor•£vJ*L rdOT of, pr'bf.ty was set down as follows w.TM 10 employer in respect of the amount as setitf against the contractor; (b) workmen who statutory notice of charge 'in re* specc'ot their .wages;, (c).sub-contractors who havb given statutory, notice of charge in re-/Jff-i-,, tila ™oney due under the sub-contract; (d)fholders of abAlute assignments. His Worship therefore held that the wages men.had a ' s»t and Paramount ,charge upon the money due to the contractor by the employer in respect of the contract, notwithstanding, the fact that; the. sub-contractors' notices were put in before those, of the workers. This decision,, however, did not relieve the three plaintiffs who , were wages men from proving their claims beforo -the Court, m the usual , way. ■In' order'that this, might bo done "the cases were further adjourned to September 1.

ALLEGED BREACH OF. CONTRACT. ' Damages to tho extent of ,£l5O were claimed by Andrew Baiter, carpenter, and John Braniff bunder, fiom *Richnrd Stratford, timber merchant. and Elizabeth Ann' Martin. The state-UR'iii.-of claim set out that plaintiffs contracted with, defendants to erect'four , houses at Kilbirhie for the sum of JEI7O eaoh. After two of the! ; hbnses had been completed and accepted by defendants they refused to allow plaintiffs to go,'on with the other two. It was for the inconvenicnoa and loss or profit consequent on this'alleged" breach of contract that plaintiffs claimed damages. i After part of the ovidiinoa had been heard his Worship adjodrned ■? th« cases until this Mr. Dunn is appearing "for plaintiffs, Mr.i Dix for defendant Stratford, and Mr. Young for Mrs. Martin,