MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 775, 26 March 1910, Page 15

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

ALLEGED fHEFT. (Before Mr. W. G. Eiddell, S.M.) On Thursday Robert Woodward appeared at the Magistrate's Court charged with the theft of £2 10s. 4Jd in money, and a waistcoat and pendant, the total value being £5 ss. 4Jd-> the property of James Edward Scott: Accused, who was represented by Mr. Wilford, elected to have the case heard before a jury. The magistrate remanded accused till Wednesday next. Bail was fixed at self in £20, and two sureties of £10 or one in £20. UNRULY -WHILE DRUNK. James Stone, charged 'with drunkenness,, assaulting Augustus Falconbridge, and also with using obscone language in Courtenay Place, pleaded "guilty." . • Sub-Inspector Norwood stated that on Wednesday evening focused behaved in a disorderly manner outsido the Albion Hotel in Courtonay Place, and on tho police arriving on the scone'ho used obscene language, and becamo so unruly that ho had to bo handcuffed. When the handcuffs were removed at tho polico station' Stone struck Constable Falconbridgo between tho eyes, without provocation whatever, On tho chargo of drunkenness a fino of 55., with the option of 24 hours' imprisonment, was.imposed; on the charge of assault a fine of 405., or seven days, was the sentenco, and on tho charge of using obscono language accused was sent to gaol for twenty-ono days. OTHER CASES. Charles William Nelson, a seaman on the Home liner Tninui, pleaded "guilty" to using obscene language on tho steamer's gawrway, Accused stated

that be was drunk at the time and had ( no recollection of using the language } complained of. Ho was convicted and fined £4, and ordered to bo placed on the vessel, which sailed that day. For drunkenness John Kiely was fined 205., in default seven days, Jehu Cameron was fined 10s., or 24 hours, and'three first offenders were dealt with in the usual way. CIVIL CASES. UNDEFENDED SUITS. Plaintiffs were awarded judgment in the following undefended cases: —E. \Y. Mills and Co., Ltd., v. Michael Bohan, £37 Bs. 10d., with costs £3 95.; Sims Hardware Company, Ltd., v. Edwin J. Campion, £7 4s. 4d., and costs £1 ss. Gd.; Sargood Son and Ewen, Ltd., v. William M'Kuy, £41 3s. Bd., costs £2 17s:; P. B. Baillie and Co., v. Frank Richard Pierce, £1 75., costs £55.; Humphries Patent Bracket and Scaffold Company, Ltd., v. A. H. Martin, £6, costs £1 3s. 6d.; Wellington City Council v. George Pinnock, £51 ss. 2d., costs £1 10s.; same v.'same, £26 lis. 6d., costs £1 35.; Wright and Carman v. Angus J. M'Curdy, 195., costs Bs.; H. Heimann v. Jessie Tull, £3 17s. 6d., costs 10s.; A. N. Jones v. Richard Walton, £5 10s., costs £1 3s. 6d.; J. B. Harcourt and Co. v. Abraham White, £125.05. 6d., costs £6 2s. 6d.; J. J. Deviric v. Albert Cooper and Charles William Cooper, £9 4s. Bd., costs 10s. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. In the case of E. W. F. Lutz V. William Harvey, a debt of £1 18s. 6d., defendant was ordered ■_ to • pay the amount on or beforo April 7,' in default 24 hours' imprisonment. William Edward Timmings was ordered to pay Scoullar and Co., Ltd., tho sum of £9 Is. by weekly instalments of 55., the first payment to be made on April 14. RECONSIDERED JUDGMENT. ALLEGED BREACH OF AWARD. Mr. W.-G. Bidclell, S.M., delivered a reconsidered judgment in the case of W. Newton, Inspector of Awards, v. Henry Denhard, baker, in which-de-fendant was sued for tho recovery of a £10 iirte for alleged breach ot tho award. Tho.prosecution hinged on the fact that dorendant commenced work in his bakehouse at 10 p.m. on December 23 last, so as to provide bread for the following four days, which were holidays. The magistrate dismissed the information at'the original hearing of the caso on the grounu that there had not been a breach, of the award under Ciauso 9, which referred to overtime, and that all overtime had. been paid. An appeal was lodged by the Inspector and the Arbitration Court held that the effect of. the award was to absolutely prohibit any .work between 10 p.m.'and midnight. The case was referred, back to the magistrate; 'and a line was pressed for bj the inspector. Tho magistrate ruled that if thoro' had been any breach, it was an excusable one, for the reason that defendant acted fairly and paid each of tho workers the correct amount for overtime. Ho considered it was a case, even if a breach had been 'committed, where Section 1G 'of. the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act should bo applied. His Worship therefore dismissed the information.. "■■■■' Mr. Findlay appeared, for the inspector, and Mr. JVl'Grath represented I the defendant. ' , ■ .