MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1052, 15 February 1911, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before J)r. A. N M'Arthur, S.M.) CIVIL BUSINESS. A .CASK FOK NOMINAL DAMAGES. "Ho (locs not appear to mo to. haveso misconducted himself as to jusiify his dismissal," said Dr. M'Arthur, S.M., yes. tcrday morning, in "giving judgment in tho cue in which Albert Prico, portmanteau maker, of Wellington, sued Thomas Garland, tin-plata worker r.iul japanner, of Taranaki Place, Wellington, to recover tho sum of £11S 13s. Od. ns damages for alleged wrongful dismissal, Mr. I). M. Findlay appeared for tlio plaintiff and Mr. A. Grav for'defendant. Plaintiff alleged that whilo in Binning, hnm, England, he was engaged on August 21, 100S, to come to Wellington, New Zealand, lo work far thrto years at £2 lis. per week for defendant, tho employment iO to subject to Rood conduct and behaviour. Fhintiffs pasKßo money (£l9 is. 3d.) was prepaid bv defendant and repaid in full by plaintiff by instalments of Es. psr week. On "November 22, 1910, plaintiff's engagement was terminated by defendant, and as plaintiff alleged ho had. performed his part of the agreement between tho parties, ho now claimed £129 I2s. general damages, \and £19 7s. 9d. as special damages. For tho dofenea it was contended that plaintiff by his conduct on different occasions had broken tho agreement between tho parties. After reviewing tho case, tho Magistrate said: "As far as I can learn from tho derisions upon tho subject, tho discharge of a servant may bo justified for tho following caus?s:-(l) Wilful disobedience of any lawful order of his master; (2) cross moral misconduct, pecuniary" or otherwise; (3) negligenoj in business or conduct calculated seriously to injuro his master's business; (I) incompetence, or permanent disability from illness. The only one of these causes, which has anv application to tho present cafe, is that'numbered 8. In reference to that cause'l do not .think that the evidenco discloses r.ny negligence on behalf of tho plaintiff in tho defendant's business, nor in my opinion does the evidenco disclose any conduct• calculated seriously to injuro his master's business. Thcro was undoubtedly'som6 unpleasantness between tho workinV partner and the ■ plaintiff, but not such.as to warrant tho plaintiffs dismissal. Plaintiff was also away on sorno few occasions, !>"* I prcsnmo ho suffered turoujlt not being paid his wages en such occasions; * After quoting several authorities on tho subject, the Magistrate continued: Uo had.in my opinion good and generous employers. He docs not appear to have been sufficiently appreciative of this, but at tho saino time ho docs not appear to me tn have so misconducted himself as to justify his dismissal! Certainly drunkenness was not proven against As tho plaintiff had no difficult? in finding employment ni the same wages after his 'dismissal," and should liavo no difficulty in retaining it if -o behaved himself, tho Magistrate hold that it was acaso for nominal damages only. Judgment ivas accordingly given for the plaintiff for £5 ahd ccsis. ' ' A BUILDING DISPUTE. ■Reserved decisiou was delivered in tho case in which 11. J. Hall and Company, painters, of Wellington,' sued h. Hough.ion, plumber, of. Wellington, to recover the sum of .£2O 3s. Gd., alleged to bo duo to plaintiffs by defendants for work done on contract on a houso at Willinm Street, Kilbiruie, Mr. C. It.- Dix appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr; A. Dunn for tho defendants; who alleged that plaintiffs had not completed the contract, and that the work dono had not been accepted lithe. defendants, and, further, .that tlio . plaintiffs could not recover until tho performance of the contract, which was an entires contract for an entire consideration.. Defendants eountevclaimed £21 8s 4d„ .estimated cost of completing tho contract, etc. ' . ' Concerning-the defence.the magistrate ' -said: "If was shown in evidence that the defendant refused cither to accept or . appoint an architect to settle the matter. Further, in the recent case of\'Delly. Sample for rj-much larger sum, his Hon-' our, Mr. Justice Coopsr, went into tho whole matter and declined b accept such a defence. In my opinion the defenco is not acceptable in' tho present ense. Having examined the work, the magistrate considered'that a.deduction of £3 Ms. would be an equitable adjustment of tho claim'. Judgment was accordiiutlv given for tho plaintiff for £IG/Us.. Cd. and costs. ■ , --."• UNDEFENDED CASES. ; Judgment by default was Riven for iilaiiitilis in iho. following uudele-nded cases:—X'ublic Trustee v. Hora Wirahaua, £4 ss.', costs 175.; Singer Scwintj Machine Co. v. Isabella Sage, £i 10s., costs 14s. j'Wellington City Council v., Alexander Bell, .£ls 17s. 4d., costs 17s.'; C. and A. Odlin Timber and Hardware Co., Ltd. v. Patrick F. Ucnnessy, £35 17s. Od., costs £2 145.; H. Oscar Hcwett and.Co., Ltd. v. Mrs. Mary Uadficld, £2 lGs. Od., costs 10s.; Lucv Mizracki v. Walter ielljng-. ham, £3'13?., costs 10s;. Phelps, Wilson and Co. v. Charles J. House, .£ls 153. 2d., costs £1 10s. Cd.; Laory and Cp., Ltd. v. Frederick Hansen, .til 4s. Gd., costs £1 19s. Gd.; same v. James Donald'cu, £17 125., costs £2. 45.; samo v. Darnel Ilnnnanan, £15 15s. 7d„ costs £1 ss. Gd.; Wellington Publishing Company, Ltd. v. Georgo Self.- JE3 -10=. Sri., costs . 55.; Joosten and Jlurio v. Andrew lanert £8 losA 4d„ costs £1 .Is. Gd.; G. lUrilt and Co. v. Allan L. Dixon, £KlSs. fid., costs £3 65.; same v. Georgo W. lajlor, £5 9s. lid., costs £1 3s. Gd.; Phelps, Ailson and Co. v. Allan L. Dixon, £19 13s. sd.7'costs '£1 10s. Gd.; Dresden Piano Co., Ltd. v. Hnpi Paornta, £10 lis. Bd., costs-JK'Os. Gd.-; Sidney Cooper Leary, Algar Temple Williams, and Lrnest William Hunt v. Francis Edward Last and Alfred Georgo .East, £30 15s. 3d., costs £<> 14= ; Ernest Colin Hay ton and Darius Dradlcv v. Ernest Ford, 15s. 6d„ costs ss. -' . • - . POLICE CASES. (Before' Mr. W. G. Itidd-dl, S.M.) Hobcrt Dell, 'alias, Ibcll alias Sncll, was charged (1) with, on January 11 last, forging tho name ot M. Baigent to an oraer for tho payment ot £M, and uttering tho samo to Charles Bird, and (°) with on December 29 last forging tho naruo of W. Williams to an order tor tho payment of iMO 10s., and,uttering the samo to Charles Bird. X)ii tho application of. Chief-Detective Brobcrg, accused was remanded until February 22. A young man, named Edward Logan, pleaded guilty to a charge of disorderly conduct whilo drunk in Frederick Street on Monday night, ami to n further charge of using obsccho language. Ho was fined 40s. on each charge, and ordered to pay witness's expenses Gs„ in default H days imprisonment. ' „., ~ lohn Wym. and Thomas Ritchie woro jointly charged with being rogues and vagabonds, in that tbey were lpund.by . night without, lawful excuse on promises in Manners. Streot.. In pleading guilty, both men stated that they went to the premises (ft cartshed) to sleep, as they were without money to enable ttem to get beds. With the exception of viction for drunkenness against Wym, nothing was known against tho men. They were convicted, and ordered to como un for-sentence when called on. George William Jackson, charged with drunkenness, hid been convicted on P 6 provious occasions. Ho was sentenced to k month's imprisonment. Ernest Albert Lovcll, for drunkenness, was,.convicted and discharged, a .prohibition order to issuo against him for ono year.