MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 863, 8 July 1910, Page 9

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

. (Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) . WHICH IS PARAMOUNT? AWARD OR MARINE CUSTOM.? A dispute between tho Australasian Federated Keamen's Union and the Wai--I'iui Steamship Co., Ltd., was heard yesterday. Mi'.' W. T. i'ouTis represented tho union, and Mr. A. L. Herunian the defendant company. Tile Seamen's Union claimed that, on May 2, the steamer Blenheim renewed articles at the port of Wellington, and the crew commenced work under the new articles on the date in question. At tho end of the month of May the defendant company refused to pay the crew of tho Blenheim thirty days' wages calculated as for a month of thirty days. This refusal was contrary to Clauses 2 and 3 of tlie seamen's award, and they claimed u penalty of JM. It was contended for dig union that the period May --May 31 entitled the men engaged to a full monthly wage, .£7. ill support of that contention, evidenco was given ljy Cnptahi Smith, superintendent of the mercantile marine, who was called with a view to proving that the custom in such cases is to treat every month, su far as seamen arc concerned, as a thirty days' month. Mr. Herdman, on the other hand, contended that what seamen were entitled to in tho way of.wages in a broken month depended upon contract, and not upon custom; thai the agreement between the masters and the seamen was contained in the articles of. the Arbitration Court award and certain provisions in the Shinping and Seamen's -Act of 11)08; and, furflier, that any custom which might have existed was entirely over-ridden by the Arbitration Court award, ami, therefore, in tho month of May, a month of thirtyone days, when men signed on on May 2, and served until May 31, they were only entitled to thirty-thirty iirsts of tho monthly wage fixed by tiie award. His Worship reserved judgment. Other eases against the Wellington Harbour and Motueka S.S. Co., regarding the jHnniiroa, anil Captain Eckford, of the Opawa, wore held over pending decision in the above case.

THE HOTEL AIiCAIHA CASK. (Before Mr. Yv. 3!. Haselden, S.M.) Reserved judgment >vas given in the civil action Joseph Thomas Horn, land ami estate agent, v. Frederick Charles Hand, and the Hotel Arcadia, Limited, a claim of .U25, alkged to he dueas balanco of payment of XaO, arm used to bo paid to plaintiff by the defendant' in the event of the former bringiing about the pale of a lease of t.lii> Hotel Arcadia. Hand, who was part proprietor ol - the hole!, had issued instructions to Horn to open up negotiations for sale of the lease. On the execution of tho agreement to lease.being enforcd info lie was lo receive .US, and another J.'25 on the balance of the purchase money being paid. I'lain!ill' had effected a leaso with 1). (PConnor. 'hut it was rescinded 011 tho ground of alleged misrepresentation on Iho part of Hand and his agents. It was, however, submittal by Horn that the transaction was complete in all respects, and he, therefore, claimed the balance of commission. Jlis Worship observed that the agreement specifically staled that the second instalment, of commission was paynblo on payment by'O'Connor of the second instalment of ..Colli) purchaso money on October J, 1909. O'Connor, however, had refused tu pity the second instalment on I lie ground of certain alleged misrepresentation on the part of defendant company. From the evidence adduced in a Supremo Court case touching this last matter, it would appear, said his Worship, that tho allegations oE uiisrom-Ascntatian "could bo

sustained*" The statement in. tin* Suproiuo Court action claimed—(a) letting asiilp of tlic luusw inni contract for purchase of furniture; (h) repayment oi the sutM of .£SOO pniil by O'Connor; (c) payment of «£SIK) as damage!?. A s hit omen I of dofonco w;-ns tiled denying these allegations, and a coimkn'-claim was made, and o defence thereto. Eventually tho net ion was settled bv tho defendant Hand paying O'Connor'.s2B6 10s. fid., and executing a release of the lease and discharge ol contract. . Co lit inning his "Worship stated that he did nut think that it couki ho tnafc the defendant Hand had voluntarily released the purchaser, O'Connor. ILuid was probably quik» iunocuut jjersonally ot misrepresentation, but tho plaintm appeared to have innocently misrepresented the lnatlo.r, and probably Hand would haw been held liable, and in tho action in. th? Supreme Court would very probably have gone against him with heavy damages and costs. If .t»ic plaintiffs misrepresented the matter, ami induced O'Connor to enter into the contract, ho could not recover commission on the sale, on the ground that his principal had compromised the purctiaser s action, and consented to a remission ot the contract. The judgment would be for defendant, with costs. }Jr. G. Toogood was counsel for plainfjfi, and 3fr. 11. Yj. AVilJiains for defendant. . •

SMASH IN KENT TEHRACJi. JJrsorvcd judgment was given in tho civil case of John Henry Nisbet v. hrcdrcrick Augustus Wollerman and Herman VTollerman, a claim for £J3 las. td., special damages, and £20 general damages. The case arose through a. collision »«- twecn a motor cycle, which was ridden by plaintiff in Kent Terrace, and a motoicar owned and driven by defendants, on April 8. As a result, of the collision, plaintiff had been badly hurt, and ho alleged that the accident was duo to tho reckless and negligent car-driving. Arising out of the same accident, an other claim was made against tho sanio defendants by the New Zealand Acetylene Gas Lighting Company, owners of tho motor cycle ridden by Nisbet, their employee. It was alleged by plaintm that the motor cycle § was damaged by the collision, and he claimcd damages to the extent of £37. In giving judgment on both actions, his Worship reviewed the evidence, and stated that he thought that Nisbet's view of the occurrence was a mistaken one. He inclined to tho opinion that tho motor-car did follow the tramcar, and was going at a very slow pace, and that the plaintiff Nisbet was going too fajt. The. defendants' car did not take the sweep into Elizabeth Street as shown on the model diagram attached to the city by-laws, but he nevertheless thought that it mado as good a sweep as was practicable. On the whole he was ot omnion that plaintiffs had failed lo show that the accident was due to Iho negligence of tho driver of the motorcar, and therefore the defendants were entitled to judgment, with costs as per scale. - '.Mr. T. Young was counsel for planum company, Mr. D. Jackson for plaint <11 Nisbet, and Mr. Hlair for the defendants in each case.

BUYER AND SELLER AT VARIANCE. An allowed broach of an agreement touching the sale of an Argylo motor-cur was the subject of an action broujjnt against Waller Williams by Frederick Georgo Butler, who claimed .CSO damages; Ml'. P. \V. ' Jackson appeared l'nr plaintiff, and Mr. Jilair for doiendunt. It was claimed thai: defendant agreed to sell the motor-car lo plaintiff for Hie Hum of .£l5O, a deposit of .£'2s to be paid, and tho balance by instalments of ,ClO a month, the last payment lo be .£35. The defendant was to put tho car in'good order before it was taken over. Plainlifl paid a deposit of .£25 last April, and during a trial found the ear unsatisfactory. A further trial made by defendant was also unsatisfactory, and repairs were effected. Ultimately defendant refused, it was alleged, to enter into the agreement to sell the ear, and, it was further alleged, had declined to refund the deposit of .£25. Plaintiff accordingly claimed .£25 damages through loss sustained by being deprived of the uso of tho car, from which he intended earning a livelihood; also a refund of the deposit of ,£25 paid to defendant. The case was partially heard, and adjourned until Tuesday next.

UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment was given for plaintiffs by default in tho following undefended civil cases:—Frost,and Frost v. Jano O'Neill, .C 2 us., costskos.; C. A. Innes v. Michael l'helan, £3 Is. 9d., costs 125.; Gear Heat Company v. Mrs. J. Millard, .£1 las. 3d., costs 10s.; A. It. and G. C. Tripe and O. V. Ellis v. James Rapley, i! 7 2s. lid., costs jll 3s. G'd.; P. Mackin v. Alfred Jlankinscn, £! 75., costs £1 3s. Cd.; Gear Meat Company v. G. Maclaine, £2 9s. 9d„ costs 125.; Ellison and Co. v. Stephen Henry Bray, costs 75.; Dora Stevens v. Harry 0. Percv,.' J2i 15s-. costs «£2 145.; Sharland and "Co., Ltd., v. J. E. Dawson, JC23 Is. 10d„ costs .£2 145.; Commercial Agency, Ltd., assignee of G. A. Gammon and Co., Ltd., v. Henry Rayner, „C4o 7s. Id., costs .£2 145.; Wairnrapn Farmers' Co-opc-ra-tivo Association, Ltd., v. Samuel T. K. Sharp, 9s. 5d., costs 55.; Herbert Price v. James Woods, ,£7 lis. 10d., costs, .CI Ss. fid.; the London "Times" v. John C. Standidge, .£lB Us., costs X 2 Os. Gd.

JUDGMENT .SUMMONSES. Orders were made in the undermentioned judgment summons cases as follow—Henry W. Williams was ordered to pay to Win. Hendry .£9 on or before July 21, in default nine days' imprisonment; Thomas A. Hudson was ordered to pay .£l9 10s. 4d. to Charles Hill and Sons on or before July 21, in default seventeen days' imprisonment; Edward Ollivor was ordered to nay to Andrew lieggs .£7 13s. on or before July 21, in default seven days' imprisonment.

POLICE CASES. (Before Mr. W. G. Paddoll, S.M.) Charles Harvey was fined JM, in default twenty-one ihiys' imprisonment, for using obscene language in Taraimki Place. Kdward Chisholni, who followed up. the constable who was engaged in arresting the previous accused, and while doing so made use of some language more forcible than polite, was also lined A 2, and witnesses' expenses -Is. The option was seven days' imprisonment. Jesse llarlen, charged with assaulting Alice Maggie ifarlen, was remanded till July 11. Hail was allowed in the sum of !:£25, and another surety of a simitar amount. Mr. I'. W. Jackson appeared for accused, and Mr, C. R. JJix fur complainant. _ • On a serious charge concerning relations with a girl under the age of consent, a youth named George lirown was remanded' till Wednesday next, Hail was allowed in the sum ol „£HO and another surety of a like sum. Prances Curry, alias Jones, deemed to be an idle and disorderly person, in that she has insufficient lawful means of support, was remanded to appear to-morrow, in the meantime an endeavour is to lie made to secure a home for her in one of the charitable institutions. The accused, wiio is aged, gave herself up (<> the polite in order to obtain nourishment and shelter. Lawrence Hanralty pleaded guilty (o charges of drunkenness, and also to procuring liquor from some person or persons unknown during the currency of a prohibition order. On the first charge he was lined 10.-=., with the opiion oi' -IS hours' imprisonment, and on the second count was lined £2, with the alternative of fourteen days' imprisonment.