MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 739, 11 February 1910, Page 9

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

MANAGER.;:; : ; V(BDfore- Mr;^R^Hasoldeii^S.M;) Honry'iEobottom. claimed 'romyEdward James l Leydohy'.trading ;as ; B. J: 'Leydon and. C6.,idraper,- of Cuba Street,'7the-sum of. S2s,";being" the':.minimumfproflts;,• al-: leged to'have been guaranteed,■by the-de-fendant >to 'thoj plaintiff■, ia yfespectrto;an : appointment las ''manager.';6f ! one of-de-fendant's: places of business.,, The defence was :,that. plaintiff •ha'd.'iot'served, hisihill .time? as' manager .';pf;' i tlto-. 'arid Jthat'a'now; agrrement fh'ad. been'ent£re.i',into; . '"•:-•:''.i-'^.'Vi^yi,;'-'■ -v ,'•;■> ■■' ■ V.Mr.'Blair appeared for plaintiff, and J[r.'iiFitzgibb'oii'.for''defciidant. ■:;•,--'.';" . : (After ,'longthy argument; which his-'Wo'r-. 'ships described-:as."of .'.considerable '■■inter? lest,"; judgment .was'•■■ reserved. '''VV;:' : '-;'■'■■;">. i ;f;iNiiffl|;sTiio:jNDENf >;CA513...; ;:•;. ¥.MiVW,.Gi" r Ei'ddeili;'o;M.;'gave judgment im'. tho ease: of-Win'. Shaw, of : . Master'ton, 'v.: Biggflis"fci\d#l'6'g'gavt, ; of Birmingham;: England, a claim fbi--.C£SO 2s/ His Worship] saictf: that; in-'.' this-'• case,- '■ before:' plaintiff ■ could;,recover,;.he must-.show that-he.v.as. the ■owner, of:the "goods -claimed: Failing that' he had .no, cause. of, notion either :,for .the.'goods or, for, damages.:: Plaintiff based his:,title upon:a judgment:in.,that:court given:'by':Dr.:ITArthur,'.5.M.,, on* Novem1909, in which plaintiff was then, defendant; ■ According to/.tho < plaint note andjstatement, of claim..in/that case) the, action was: one ,f6r ' damages,,and, .was brought 'onj.tnrough 'plaintiff :.rcfusing;to take delivery, of the goods.n'oV'claimeu'by' him; Judgment went for.the,full amount aridjhad been-satisfied;.-Plaintiff-iiowVas-' serted that : as- this;amtfuntAvas ''exactly' the/price; of. tho. goods,'; the claim.;: and -judgment,':though styled .'as .being for damages, was -price; of the :goods'.liVAftir.. dence:'and'..judgment, .Mr. Riddell stated that' ho .was'not.prepared-to ;say. that tho' judgment'.was for.Uhe.price,.and'.not'for. damages equalling f the same.? amount; as .the price.' i'Plairiflff.had:,aU6wod his.opportunity'Cfof.a.rehearing or'-'.appeal -to' lapse,'.and'had 'satisfiedvtho.'judgment so" .that -he■'was 'how, -in,'his Worship'sopinion, : estopped ..from - raising' -any.: question as to the'nature or form'of the,judgment. Further,'• it was\beyond"the. jurisdiction of - ; thatv Court to review- the. 'decision' of another, magistrato,:in' thil.'samo'■ matt-ir, oven if ■', erroneous, /and -declared'it to'bo something :bther, than ii, . purported -to be. - ,Th'o■ position"'was I .'.that these/goods' were rejected by :plaintiff ;• arid' on .breach of ,tho contract .between 'the parties, tho pro-, perty 'in''-them ; -remained "in." the.'-.vcnUors. The 'mei'.o'payment'.of damages, even nl- ; i though v.theso Were' foundv'to, be roxactly 1 the:, same - price, as: tho goods, could-.' not act in. such: a way as to vcstin-plaintiff the- property:in'the'rejected ,'gbods...HAs to the alteriiativeclaimfor.daniages, that xould', not', bo:sustained -until : . title/; was proved,, and-as plaintiff had failed to 'do. i,that,' judgment, must go for defendant, 'with court costs 6s. and/solicitor's fee M 9s. .His Worship, also'added that; the goods must.have some .value, -and.-it. was difficult'to'see"how'the -damages could, amount, ta" their price,' 'but that was the effect of the judgment. •;.-.;>,.:: ..-: ';:

'./claim: mod coiintbr-clAim.:-- ; '"lri the caseof'Josiah.Dawson,.. electrical engineer (Mr. Jackson), v. David Morris Owens, builder; (Mr.' Kelly),.'a claim for IBs.'-6d.' work" and- interest,' defendant ; counter-claimed ■; for ~£ls 9s. v for. alterations .'and additions to. work and daniages.". '■" After hearing: evidence, •' judgment' was/given.for-pla.intiff forjE22-95.6d. and costs 55..5 d. -. . "■.' ./';../:. •/ . " ,' '"■■',:■ :"the;undefended list./: / y. (Bcforo/Jlr/;W.. R/ Hasel'den,'': SiM'.j " -Judgment • for, plaintiffs' wns .delivered! iri'the, following civil, cases:—Commercial Agency, Ltd.,' Assigneo, and. Sargood/. Son and Ewon, Ltd., assignors, . v. A.' G. Mackay, '£112 Os. 7d.,'costs £6 13s.;'Commercial Agency, Ltd., : v,.Edward R. Is-, sell, .£65 Gs. 8d„ costs £i 2s. Gd. ; Thomas. Ballinger:and'iC'o...v. Francis Pierce, .13s. ■3d.', costs 55.; To. Aro House Drapery Company. Ltd:, v;. Wm. A. ■Hi Love, .£l7 Os. 7d., costs .£1 10s.' 6d.j Smith and Smith, Ltd./ v..-William-Edgar.. Bate-,-man, £1 12s. 10d.', costs Bs. i same v.. Dan Elias,' Bs. 3d.V costs 55.; James Patterson and Co.", Ltd., v. George' Clark;. £6 .155. 9d„ costs XI 35.,6d.j George A. Adams v. Angerstein and Jeffery, £2 Gs. Gd., costs IGs.; Vacuum Oil Company Proprietary, Ltd.,' v. Charles' White,- £1 135., costs 55.; R. Hudson and Co., Ltd., v. Richard Pratt/ '.£B,ils.'Bd.,. costs... £1 ,35. Gd.j J. Keir v; Edwin .Lionel Legge,- i1p..125...2d., I costs .61 Is/Gd.".""..

/.JUDGMENT summonses/ ;/": '- Arthur Henderson was ordered to pay 'H.--: N. Hansen £6 Is. forthwith, in default:, to. undergo six days' imprison-, incut, warrant to be suspended so long as-instalments of 10s.. per. week were paid. No order was made in the case of. J. O'Brien and Co. v. Leonard AV. Elliott,,a debt of'JSl 12s. 0d... '-,, ".' ' INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS.: ' '"'■■'; ''"' NON-UNIONIST ON A JOB.' :.\, The Inspector of Awards, Mr. W. Newton, proceeded against Messrs. Moyer and Illiugworth,'- builders, 'for recovery- of a penalty o£ ,£lO for. employing .-a .nonunionist named Jas. Leslie at... the .work of erecting tho new King's' Theatre, when unionist labour was available.

Mr..'Newton prosecuted for the Labour Department, and Mr. C.H.'lzard represented defendants. .

William '■ Illingworth; partner- in the firm of. Meyer nnd Illingworth, stated that Leslie applied on the job for work. Witness referred him to his foreman, Meyer, who stated that he could do with another man." Witness asked Leslie-in a casual way wnother; lie. was a momber of the union.. In reply, Leslie drew a document from: his pocket which witness, took to bo his, certificate of membership.; rjfilin Henry Meyer, foreman, employed' on the erection of the King's-Theatre; gave ovidence of a corroborative -nature. -, ,■■ In.:reply to Mr. Newton,, witness- said that'ho.did not examine the employment ■book. ■... '~ "'.;, ;..'. '■;.:.,,,. ,' '. ' ■■■ '■ .His Worship at this, stage said that, a conviction must bo recorded;. ;',, :;'' '_'.' '..-'Mr. Izard thereupon dwelt on the,diffioulty.ofteii experienced by .employers in;, discovering .with certainty whether,; .an .applicant..for work'.was d,'.-'unionist' '"■;or: not. •■ '~..: .■:,..". ..;.:.' ... ■ '•' •■. His Worship remarked.that he was prepared to take tho.vjow that ihe.publicity tho case would receive would have, a good ■effcot ,in making, tho law;.better known, and its requirements observed, better. •■-■;; ; Mr, > Newton remarked that .employers had tho remedy in their own hands; in that, they, could; inspect.:the employment book. ,i':.; '/.,?.. ':'■■[ ■'.' ' ■'~-■-■•": His .Worship replied' that they' had.got tp bs practical, and-.they must have elasticity.. , A.:breach,' however,? had-been-os-tablishe'd,; and a.nominal penalty would; bo imposed. Defendants were fined. 10s., with; costs amounting":tp 10s. ;: !'.;';" ; ; y' y : V POLICE CASE/ ■?■?'.' ■■■;.At.:the''-■', Magistrate's Court-yesterday,; an', offender, ..charged ■ with .being help-' lesslydrunlc, was fined 20s.)■ with the option Vof 48 hours' imprisonment.-;': ;'':,.■