LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 851, 24 June 1910, Page 9

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT. A PRIVATE BURYING GROUND. DEDICATION OF LAND. The poiver of a private person to dedicate certain land, five miles from Hulls township, for the purpose of a private burying ground was the foundation of ail action in which the parties Donald Jfraser v. James Campion, and twelve other residents of the Dangitikoi district, tlio trustees of a quarter of an acre of land in question. Plaintiff asked that the land, as described in a conveyance dated April 11, 1910, between the Hon. C. J. Johnston on tlio first part, Donald' Fraser on the second part, and James Campion and others on the third part, should bo set apart as a burial ground under the Cemeteries Act, 1908, and that tlio parties to. the third part of the conveyance should be the managers of the burial ground. When the matter was before his Honour the Chief Justice in Chambers recently, direction was given that the summons should bo served on the Attorney General, the chairman of the Bulls Town Board, the chairman of the.County Council, and tho trustees.

Sir. Harold Johnston, who appeared for the plaintiff, a farmer, of Pekehou, near Bulls, set out that in 3554 ono Cornelius Campion, the owner of the land in question, set asido a quarter acre for the purpose of a grave for a shepherd who had died while in his employment, as there was-then no burial ground within a day's journey. The nearest cemeteries were at Wellington and Wanganui. The Campion and Fraser families intermarried, and thenceforward all members of the two families who died in tho Hangitikei district were buried in tho vicinity of the original grave. Tho land became the property of Donald Fraser, but was now vested in the Hon. C. J. Johnston. In order to preserve the land as a family burial ground, plaintiff was now seeking to have it declared such, and to have it voited in the trustees set out in the conveyance of April 11. Mr. J. W. Salmond, Solicitor-General, appeared for the Attorney-General, and opposed tlio application. After hearing argument at some length his Honour reserved his decision. IN CHAMBERS. Preliminary argument was heard ■ in Chambers'before the Chief Justice in the case Catherine Clements v. tho District Land Registrar, a summons'to substantiate the grounds of refusal to bring part of Section 30, Ivarori district, under the previsions of the Land Transfer Act, 1908. The matter was eventually adjourned to enable counsel to consider certain points raised by his Honour, ilr. Blair appeared for Mrs. Clements and Mr. Fell for the District Land Kegistrar. MAGISTRATE'S COURT. (Before Mr. W. G. Eiddcll, S.M.) TO VINDICATE THE LAW. END OF THE FALKINEIi, CASES. Edward John Falkiner appeared on remand in answer to a charge of having, on August lust, contrary to his duty, opened a postal packet addressed from Auckland to one Louisa Itobcrtsan. Mr. W. H. D. Bell, on behalf of tho Crown, asked that the charge bo withdrawn by leave of tho Court. Tho object of the information had been to vindicate the law, and. since Falkiner was now serving a sentence for theft, of which ho had been convicted by the' Supremo Court, sufficient had already beei\ done. His Worship agreed, and the cilargo was therefore withdrawn. INSOBRIETY. Ono first offender, convicted on u charge of drunkenness, ' was duly cautioned and discharged. John Riley, alias Smith, alias Jennings, several times previously convicted, was fined 20s„ with the option of seven days' imprisonment, upon his conviction upon a charge of drunkenness. James Henwood, described by the police as "becoming a regular nuisance," was remanded till this morning,_ for sentence, in order to enable inquiries to be made as to his accommodation at tho Pakatoa. Island Salvation Army Institution for Inebriates. CIVIL BUSINESS. (Before Mr. W. R. Easelden, S.M.) UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment for the plaintiffs by default was given in th« fullowing undefended cases-.—"London Times" v. Charlotte Mary Anderson, JEII 65., costs <£2 10s. Gd.j John Norton v. Hans Charles Lawson, iC2 l&s., costs JJI ss. Cd.; Stone, Sou, and C 0.,. Ltd., v. John Tofts, £3 2s. 6d„ costs 10s.; Joseph Lewis v. Edward Woods, .£2 155., costs 10s.; S. S. Williams, Ltd., v. C. T. Scoringer, .£1 (Is., costs 55.; Isidore' Solomons v.- Walter Sutherland, <£1 45., costs 55.; same v. James Ives, .£2, costs 55.; Barber and Co. v. Alfred Marshment, 7s. Gd., costs 55.; Geo. Mills and Co., Ltd., v. Thos D. Leitch, .£3B is. 3d., costs JC2 145.; 11. Plimmer v. Wilfred L. Aitken, .£3 ss. 4d., costs 10s.; Thomson, Lewis, and Co. v. J. Woods, JE34 95., costs £2 145.; Annie Peet v. H. Nelson Council, JE9 2s. Sd., costs .£1 3s. 6(1.

CLAIM FOR GOODS AND WOEIC. The bulk of tho afternoon sitting of the Court was taken up in the hearing of evidence in the cast D. Robertson and Co., Ltd., ironfounders, of Wellington, v. Thomas, farmer, of Ngaruawhaia, a claim for .£BO 4s. lid. for goods stated to have been sold and delivered, and for work claimed to have been done, according to specifications set out in detail in the statement of accounts attached. Sir. Young appeared for tho plaintiff company, and j\lr. L-ovvey for tiio defendant. 'The evidence was largely technical. After hearing argument liis Worship reserved his decision. INDUSTRIAL CASES. A SERIES 01' FINES,. Tho Inspector of Awards (Walter Newton) proceeded agaiust various employers for alleged breach of awards. 11. 11. Knight was sued for ,£lO, penalty for alleged breach of tho prefijrenco to unionists clause. He was convicted and fined .£2, with costs 18s. 1 A. H. Hart, a butcher, sued for .£lO, penalty claimed by the Labour Depart ment for alleged employment of casual boy labour on Saturdays, was codvictnd and lined =£3. James Johnston, for whom Jtr. W. A. Grenfell, secretury of tho Employers' Association,. appeared in defence, admitted having committed breaches of (lie pro. visions of the award, which insisted upon payment of wages for Good Friday and Easter Monday, and the supply of time books to his workers. The Department claimed ,£2O. Judgment was given for both breaches, a ss. line being imposed for the first oft'enco, arid 23v. for tho second. A penalty of 420 ivns ';!aim«rl hv tho Department in tho action against Enssons Limited, of Kilhirnie, who were Alleged to have failed (1) to pay a youth named Stol-t for award holidays during the period Oojemher, lilO'J—April, mill; and (2) to pay the award rato of Vr.2J<[. per hour for machinists, paying lid. instead. For the first breach, judgment was (riven for .£3, with costs 55.; for the second, the line imposed was .£l, without costs. A imo of £1 was imposed upon Strand Brothers for having failed to notify the Labour Department of the engagement o£

a non-u The breach was admitted, it beiug explained in extenuation that Strand Brothers had employed a lutud outside tho 25-mile radius governed by the award. Ho had been brought within tho radius to another job, and tho employers had ov;*rl<»ked the fact that tho Department; should ho notified accordingly. The penalty claimed was X'lo.

In tho capp against Briscoe and Co., proceeded against for an alleged breach of tho preference to unionists clause, the action was defended, evidence being given to the cffect that the firm, having a contract to roof a building with "Marseilles" tiles—a contract involving the employment of men who understood how to hnndle tiles carefully, and with tho least possible u'uste—looked about for a tiler, or, failing that, a tiler's labourer. Tho union's employment hook contained no . workers, tiu? firm stated, capable of carrying out fhe work. They then advertised, without result. Then a non-unionist was engaged, and hence the action. It was admitted in evidence that the non-unionist employed had to be discharged as incompetent. The Department claimed for JJIO. Judgment was given for .£2, with costs 325. The case against Moore and Co., for two breaches of the Drivers' Award, was partly heard, and then adjourred till. Tuesday next.