MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 662, 12 November 1909, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

.{Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) POLICE, CASES. - / For insobriety, two first offenders were conFicted and discharged, and another was fined ss. Frederick. Whitelionse and John Keid ; were nned ss. and 10s. respectively. ' CIVIL BUSINESS. , ' (Before' Dr. A. M'Aithur, S.M.) Judgment by default was given in tho following civil cases.—H. U. Turrell v. John Fernandos, 195., and costs 10s.; Wellington tfas Co., Ltd., v. Charles J. B. Macnee, .£6 lls. Bd., and costs .£1 ss. 6d4 Elizabeth Scott v. John Miller, £2, and costs 10s.; Stone, Son, and Co., Ltd., v. E. H. Lukms, ,£s* 10s, and costs .El 3s. 6d., George Doughty and Co. v. Thomas K. Toylor, £oH Is. 10d., alld <!osts .£3 ifls.; 3. E. Jenkinson t. Vr . Sutherland, £3 55., and costs 10s.; Cooke, Sons, and Co., Ltd., v. Lamb and Todd, Ltd., ,£133 Ss.''Bd., and costs M 6s. 6d.; Mrs. Mathowson V. David Filmer, .£5 ss. 6d., and costs jfil, 3s. 6d.; C. W. Wycherlcy and Sons v. Thomas Walker, costs only, Bs.; Robert AndeAod v. Fred Davies, XI 155,, and costs 55.; Wellington Gas Co, Lid., v. Frederick John White, 17s, 9d., and costs 55,; Vacuum Oil 'Co. v. Alfred George Betts, £2 18s. Cd., and costi 10s. ?' JUDGMENT SITMMONSUS. ' ' ', 1 In tho judgment summons case, T. B. and L. Dwan v. Robert Whiteman, a debt of £& 2s fid, debtor was ordered to pay v tho amount on or boforo November 25, in detault one month's impi iwnmcnt. Gonrgo Ilenrj Morgan was ordered to pay Jackson and Co. a debt ot £15 6s. 5d., on oi bnforc November 25, in default 14 dajs' imprisonment. Henry Hurroll was ordered to p;ay Malfroy, Hogarth and Co., Ltd., a debt of JSIO 7s. sd. forthwith, in default 7 days' imprisonment, the warrant to bo snspended so long a& £l a "fortnight was p'lid, tho first payment to ,bo mad? on November 25. , ' No order wns made in the case of Alfrod Wildon Harrison /v. William Davis, a of £7 10s. Cd. ' , ~ - BUOITORS AT LAW. ,-> ' Dr. M'Arthur 'gave his reserved judgment in a Lowor Hutl case betweon Henry Vincent Westbury, cycle engineer, plaintiff (Mr Bnnny), and Walter Hand WeStbury,' engfnceif, and John Armstrong- horee-tramer, defendants

(Mr MGrath) Plaintiff claimed for possession ot a polo trap or its value, .£35, and £5 from each dependant as damages for alleged wrongful detention of the trap. "This," baid hii Worship, "is an unfortunate dispute botwoen two brothers, who, for years, had been tho best of friends In my opinion, there is no case against Armstrong, who never put forth any claim to the trap Tho weight of the ovidonco is deoidedly in favour of the defendant Wcstbnry being tho owner of the trap Judgment mil therefore be given for defendants, with costs .£3 6«" OF INTEREST TO EMPLOYERS Tho Wellington Iron and Brass moulders Industrial Union of Workers (Mr Gilford) pro coeded ag-unst D Robertson and Co, Ltd (Mi loung) on a charge of a breach of the preference clause of the award go\ermng this trade, in that ho employed a now arrival in tho Dominion while .the nameb of unionists wore on tho employment book Thenfore, the union claimed a penaltv of £20 Defendant stated that lie employed the non unionists from % purely charitable motive, he ! wns not in need of a man ' Counsel for the defence read a letter from Mr J Loraas, Chief Inspector of tho Labour Department,'- to the union stating tbat a technical breach had been committed, but taking the circumstances into consideration, it was not considered desirable to prosecute Tho union, however, counsel added, itesired to prosecute on its own initiative Another point was that it had not been tho practice in the past to refer to the "raployment book, as it had not been propoily kept After hearing further evidence, his Worship announced that iw would give judgment on Tuesday TRAVELLER AND AGENT. (Before Mr W G Riddell, SM) Edward M'Gintj, commercial traveller (Mr Dfx), proceeded igainst Granville Hunt, merchant (Mr de B Brandon, jun), to recover .£lO 3s, tho amount of a Cheque drawn by defendant on tho Bank of Australasia at Wei hngton, pavnble to the plaintiff oi bearer, ■nhieh was dishonoured when presented 'Defendant countorclaimed for £& 11s 5d for commission and alleged overcharges It was stated that the cheque was issued in error •Defendant said that a good many of the orders sent in lj tho plaintiff uero never signed by customers Decision was. reserved