MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1141, 31 May 1911, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Krtorc Mr. \X. G. Ridtlell, S.M.) INTERESTING TEST CASE. MAY A SON HELP HIS FATHER? An inlere.-ting test case was heard yesterday, when the Wellington I'aintcra' and .Decorator.-,' I'liiiin sued Andrew Collins, of Km-Di-i Road, Wellington, for a XW penalty for an alleged breach of the Wellington Painters' and Decorators' Award of Au«u>;, 11)10. -Mr. I). S. Smith appeared for the plaintiff union, and Mr. !■;. J. Filzijiblioii for defendant. Pluintifl's alleged that, durins the months of Decemljrr, 1910, and January and I'ebruary, lull, the defendant had employed hi< son as a painter. As the son was neither a journeyman, nor an apprentice, nor a member of the Painters' and Decorators' Ijiion, and, as ruialilied members of the union were available to do the work, it whs contended that a biT.Tch of the award had been committed.

Mr. Fitzffibboii contended that, as the plaintiff union was incorporated, and counsel for plaintiff had failed to prove its incorporation, he must be nonsuited. As further grounds for a nonsuit, Mr. Fitsgilibon contended that counsel for plaintin' should have, proved that defendant was a party to the award, but had failed to do so. Neither had they proved that defendant's son was a worker as denned by the Act. Two other nonsuit points were also raised, but his Worship declined to dismiss the case without calling on tho defence. After hearing the evidence of defendant and his son, his "Worship stated that ho regarded the case as a trivial one, and gave judgment for defendant, with costs totalling M ss. CLAIM FOR RENT. Edmund Carroll, pastrycook, of Wellington, sued F. Hansen, builder, of Wellington, to recover the sum of .£", this amount being made up of £3 lfs. for one week's rent of a liousb from April 2 to April fl, and .£3 10s. in lieu of one week s notice. Mr. Fair appeared for plaintill, and Mr. P. W. Jackson for defendant.

Defendant, it appeared, had agreed to take the house for one year if the rang? were put in order, but this arrangement was never completed. Defendant then paid half a week's rent up to April 2, and refused to pay further rent as the ran.Te was not in satisfactory condition for cooking purposes. The magistrate said that it was ck-.ir that defendant had agreed to take the house for one year if the range were put in order. The range was never put in order, and therefore that arrangement fell through. The fact that defendant afterwards paid half a week's rent placed him on the. foatin? of a weekly tenant at £3 10s. per wecE. ■ His 'Worship, however, was of opinion that (in assessing hie rent) it must be taken into consideration that ths range was out of order, and it was essential in a dwelling that the range should ba in pood order. Judgment would be for plaintiff for £1 10s. and Court costs 12s.

no rnooF of agreement. (Before Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M.) ! The question as to whether an employer is compelled to pay the travelling expenses of an employee to and from the place of employment, was the principal point involved in the civil case in which Ueorge Volkman, engineer, of Wellington, sued the Golden Bay Cement Works, Ltd., of AVcllingtch, to recover the sum of J!7 Bs. -Id., alleged to be due by defendant company to plaintiff for loss of time in going from Nelson to defendant company's works at Tarakohe, and for loss of time in coming from Tarakohe to Wellington, and expenses incurred for steamer Inre, meals, etc., aud one week's wages in lieu of notice. Mr. V. \V. Jackson appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. G. 101 l ior defendants. Mr. Jackson intimated at the outsei that plaintiff would abandon the claim cf £3 125., one week's wages in lieu of notice. Plaintiff had been engaged in November last to go to the defendant company's works at Tarakohe, where lie was to have employment at Is. 6d. per hour. Plaintiff started work on November 30, and his services were dispensed with on February 13. The company l'ad paid plaintiff' .SI Os. M. for expenses in going to the job, and he now claimed expenses, £3 lGs. id., for expenses and timo lost on the return journey. In evidence, plaintiff alleged that he had been given to understand that he would be paid travelling expenses, and that he had actually been offered 15s. by the company's Wellington agent as a settlement of expenses on the return journey. Defendants denied that, there was any agreement to pay travelling expenses on tho return journey, or that ths Wellington r.gent had made any offer. Tho magistrate held that, as there was no award to apply to the case, and no proof of agreement between the parties judgment , must bs for defendants. No costs would be allowed.

GOODS SOLD AND DELIVERED. John Duthio and Co., Ltd., merchants, Willis Streot, Wellington, claimed XlO 12s. 3d. from Nelson Harvey, engineer, Victoria Street, on account of goods alleged to have been sold and delivered by plaintiffs to defendant. Jlr. IT. K. Kvans appeared for plaintiffs, and Jlr. 1\ G. Bolton for defendant. Defendant admitted that he personally ordered the goods, but stated that they were ordered on. behalf of the Electric Light and Tower Engineering Company, of which company he' was a salaried officer. After hearing evidence, the magistrate held that defendant was liable for payment, and gave judgment for the amount claimed, with costs .£3 2s. UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment by default was given for plaintiffs in tho following undefended cases:—Wellington City Council v. Annie Henrietta O'Neill, S3 lGs. 5d., costs 65.; Levin and Co., Ltd. v. James Alfred Stanford, .£ls Is. od., costs £1 is. fid.; Wellington City Council v. Mary Alice Floyd, M 13:>. Sd., costs 8.=.; Rosenberg and Co. v. Duncan MTarlane, .£3, costs 55.; Wellington Publishing Co., Ltd. v. Gco AV. Hull, costs 10s.; C. and A Odliu Timber and Hardware Co., Ltd. v. Vcrnon Stacey, JG2B Is. od., costs 11s.; John Duthie and Co., Ltd. v. O. William Stcver, £26 18s. 2d., costs £1 135., Raphael Tuck and Sons., Ltd. y. Cowell Bros., £2 45., costs 10s.; Whitenmbe and Tombs, Ltd. v. nenry Spring, El 18s. Bd., costs lls.; Peter Robertson Russell v. James Ross Eraser. .CM lls. 8d cost £1 10s. 6d.; Atlas Biscuit and Confectionery Co. v. Elizabeth Paine, ■£l 16s. Bd., costs lls.; A. and T. Burt, Ltd. v James C. P. Kirkwood, £W lGs. 2d, costs £2 145.; Henry Savage v. L. C Collett, l"s.. costs 55.; Herbert John Gillett v. David Martin, £IS 65., costs XI 10s. 6d. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. James Charles Parko Kirkwood was ordered to pay M 16s. to tho Stewart Timber, Glass, and Hardware Co., Ltd. on or before June 13, in default seven days' imprisonment. POLICE CASES, (Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) Albert Lee pleaded guilty to stealing, on May 25, jewellery valued at .£3 10s., the property of Edith Clarke. He also pleaded guilty to a charge of stea ing a revolver, valued at 305., on May lb, tins being tho property of Allan Howtien. Chief Detective Broberg stated that the thefts had been committed at a boardingliouse in Hill Street, where accused was employed. The jewellery had been pledged for 13s. and the revolver for 10s. There was one previous conviction against licensed foi theft ul l-'oxton about five years ago. The magistrate imposed a sentence of nne month'r. imprisonment on each charge, the sentences to be concurrent. An order \v.n> made that the goods be returned to the owners :m payment of the amount; for which they were pledged. John M'Ksiy, charged with drunkenness, was fined 35., with the alternative of 24 hours' imprisonment. Two first-ofi'ending inebriates, who did not appear, were ordered to forfeit their bail (10s. each) or to undergo 24 hours' imprisonment. Three other first offenders worn fined iis., with the option of 24 hours' Iniprisoilmpnt, and another first offender vws convicted and diichareed,