MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1076, 15 March 1911, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Mr. W. G. Eiddell, S.M.) INTERESTING TO EMPLOYERS. ' HOURS OF ASSISTANTS. "I am ■ not prepared to accept Mr. Herdman's argument that tlio repeal.of Sub-section 4 of Section 6 of the Shops and Offices Act, ,1903, had no effect upon awards, which had expired, but had not been renewed before December, This was the opinion expressed.by Mr. W. G. Eiddell, S.M., in delivering reserved judgment in the caso of E. A. Le Cren, Inspector of

Factories, v. James Rod and Co., butchers, in which defendants were charged with a breach of tho Shops and Offices Act. Mr. Herdman appeared for defendants.

"Defendant," said his Worship, "is charged that, during tho week ending on Saturday, February 13, 1911, he employed a shop assistant (Wm. Ashmore) for more than nine hours, excluding meal times, on more than ono day in such week. The facts are admitted."

"Defendant is a butcher carrying on business in Wellington under the Wellington Operative Butchers' Award, which came into operation on January 20, 1903, and expired on March 31, 1910. Under that award the hours of work in a butcher's business must not exceed f)G in any one week, and they are to bo regulated in advance by each employer according to the requirementof his own business. The award makes no reference to the provisions cf the Shops and Offices Act, 1904, but it is obvious that, as butchers' assistants are shop assistants (as defined by that Act), its provisions apply. Section 4 of the Act of 1901 was in force at the. time that the award was made, and it corresponds to Section 6 of the Shops and Offices Act of 190 S. Sub-section 4 of Section 4 of tho Act of 1904 states that this section shall operate subject to the provisions of this Act, and to any award of tho Court of Arbitration.

. "Sub-section 1 (b) of Section 4. also states that a shop, assistant shall not bo employed in or about the shop or its business for more than nine hours (excluding meal times) in any one day except on one day in each week, when the employment may be for 11 hours, excluding meal times. "By Sub-section 1 of Section 91 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1908, any award in force on the coming into operation of that Act shall, notwithstanding the expiration 'of the currency of such award, continue in force until a new award has been made under this Act, except where (pursuant to Sections 21 and 22) the registration of an industrial union of workers, bound by such award, has been cancelled. 'The provisions of tho above section were in force when the butchers' award came into existence on January 20, 1908. On October 10, 1903, an amendment to the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act was passed, and by Section ■• 74, it was enacted: (1) that the" provi-sions-of an award should continue in force until the expiration of the period for which' it was made, notwithstanding that before such expiration any provision inconsistent with the award was made by any Act passed after the commencement of this Act, unless in that Act the 'contrary was expressly provided. (2) That, on the expiration of the said period, the award should, during its further, subsistence, be deemed to be modified 1 in accordance with the law then in force.

"The position when tho. Butchers' Award camp into operation was that Section 6 of the Shops and Offices Act applied to shop. assistants, subject to the provisions of tho award, and at its. expiration on March 31, 1910, that position was .unaltered. On December 3, 1910, the Shops and Offices Amendment Act, 1910, repealed Sub-Section •4 of Section 6 of the Shops and Offices Act, 1903,. and left tho Section v free from tho. effect of any'award. .

"The result was, in my opinion, that immediately that the statute was passed all expired awards which were subsisting aiid : retaining their original force by virtue of Section 74 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act, 1908, were affected. I am not prepared to accept Mr. Herdman's argument that the repeal of Subsection 4 of Section 6. of the Shops and Offices Act, 1908, had no effect upon awards which had expired, but had not been renewed before December, 1910. I think that; immediately!;,that.;,; S.ubr

Section .I was repealed, the provisions of Section 6 must bo regarded as unaffected by the terras of any award, whether expired or not, unless expressly provided for in the statute."

The magistrate considered that it was a case for a conviction, and a nominal penalty onlv. A fine of os. was imposed. Security for leave to appeal was fixed at £7 7s.'

Pending the apocal the cases against E. Barber and Co., Garrett and Co., the Gear Meat Co., and the Waingawa Meat Co., in which the facts were the same, will stand over.

REPAIRS TO MOTOR-CAR TYRES. The Cvcle and Motor Supplies Limited, .merchants, Allen , Street, Wellington, sued Stephen H. Mattorson, cycle engineer, Palmer Street, to recover the sum of £6 7s. 3d., balance of an account alleged to be duo by 'defendant to plaintiffs, for repairs to motor-ear tyres. An account had been rendered for £13 7s. 3d., and defendant, having paid £7, left the balance in dispute. Mr. Short appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr. C. R. Dix for the defendant. For the defence it was alleged that on account of inferior workmanship some of the tyres had fallen into disrepair too soon after the original repairs had been effected. It was contended that tho sum of £7 already paid was a fair remuneration for the work done.

After hearing the evidence the magistrate gave judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs totalling £1 16s. . . DAMAGES CLAIMED.. (Before Dr. A. M'Artlmr, S.M.) Frank Thomas Boys claimed £10 18s. 6d. from Robert Benzie, as damages for injuries to plaintiff's motor-cycle alleged to have been caused by defendant's negligence. Mr. D.'Jackson appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. T. M. Wilford for the defendant. Plaintiff alleged that, on January 13, at Trent-ham, defendant negligently left a horse and trap in the roadway, and that the horse dragged ,thc vehicle against the motor-cycle belonging to plaintiff, and injured it. _ Plaintiff had ,bocn seriously inconvenienced in his business by the loss of the use of the cvcle, while it was being repaired. Further, the cycle had. depreciated as a result of the injuries. Mr. Wilford contended that plaintiff should be non-suited, as he had admitted contributory negligence in leaving his machine unattended for eo longDefendant, in' evidence,, stated that he had left the trap safe with a holder.

; The magistrate reserved decision until March 21.

CLAIM FOR POSSESSION. Donald Hugh Norton sued F. Loudon to recover possession of certain goods alleged to have heen wrongfully detained by* defendant, or, in the alternative, the sum of £43 55., value of the goods. Loudon alleged that he had detained the "oods on recount of rent which was overdue, but plaintiff denied..this. \ftcr hearing evidence, the magistrat ordered that plaintiff should recover possession of the goods on or o?fore March 16. . Mr. D. Jackson appeared for plaintiff.

UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment by default was given for plaintiffs in tho following .undefended cases:—"Wellington City Council v. AVm. John Rall'e, £5 10s., costs Bs.; Empiro Box Making Co., Ltd., v. Wm. Lavory, £1 75., costs os.; Henry Fielder v. John England Barker, costs os.; same v. Alfred Floyd, £9 ss. 6d., costs lis.; J. :S.whidale'.v. Henaro Parata, £2 Bs.,

costs 175.; He'nrv Thos. Jameson v. Charles Benzie, £62 Ms., costs £4 7s. Gd.; Richard Tree Badham, liquidator for Hutchison and Campbell, Ltd., v. Rouse, Black and Son, £1 25., costs us. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. No order was made in the judgment summons case of Gilbert E. I'owncs v. William Hookc, a claim lor £4 9s. POLICE CASES. (Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) Charles Frieuolf Johnston pleadol guilty to a charge of assaulting John Broadbent Hall. Sub-Inspector Sheehan stated that the assault was a cowardly one, and quite unprovoked. Hall was standing outside .the King's Theatre at 10 minutes past S on Monday evening when accused came up, and, without any excuse, struck Hall two violent blows in tho face, causing injuries which rcccssitaiod medical attention. The magistrate imposed a fine of £3, in default 21 days' imprisonment. An order was made for .£1 of the line to be paid to complainant for medical expenses. A first-offending inohriate who di 1 not appear was ordered to forfeit his bail of 10s., in default 24 hours' imprisonment.