MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1371, 23 February 1912, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Dr. M'Arthur, S.M.)

WHAT WAS HIS STATUS? IN A DAY'S BAY MENAGE. Dr. M'Arthur, S.M., delivered judgment in tho case, in which D. Carmody, Inspector of Awards, proceeded against the Wellington Kerne.", Ltd., lo recover Xlfl, as a penalty for a breach of tho Cooks' anil Waiters' award. The information stated that ilio Perry Company employed a man named F. Bradley at Day's Bay House at .£1 ss. per week, whereas XI lus. is the wage stipulated by the award. Ill's Worship said- that the ovidoneo showed that Bradley spent one-third ot his time in the kitchen lighting (ires, attending to the hot water, and preparing vegetables, and the rest of his time was spent in doing the work of a general rnusenbout. •' .Such being the work done ,by Bradley, his Worship considered that Bradley was a general hand, for, whom tho wage had been Sxed'by the award at ,£1 ss. Judgment was, therefore, for the defendant Ferry Company.

"ONE-OF THE MAXY CASES." Dr. M'Arthur gave judgmentnlso in the caso of Walter fcmart v. Wilkin and another. Plaintiff had stated that on Juno.3, 1911, he. had delivered a motor-car at the defendants' for overhaul and repair, and tho defendants -had . agreed 'to do the work, and to : the. car by the beginning of September, 1911. Nevertheless,, they had neglected ,to do the work nnd return the car, despite repeated demands for possession. For being deprived of the car '.faO as damages was claimed. The defendant counter-claimed for <£IS2 Ss. for the work, in respect of which work the plaintiff had paid .£75 into Court, ''This," said his Worship, "is one of tho many cases that arise by reason of the parties not having' a clear understanding at the beginning of tho transaction.' , Ho ,was of the opinion that Hie plaintiff had been in no great hurry, but the defendants wero responsible for some of the delay, for which ho allowed J-'3O. On the counter-claim he allowed the full amount, XlB2 Bs. At tho hearing, Mr. A. Dunn represented the ■. plaintiff, and Mr. E; C. Levvey the defendant. •

BUILDING OF WARDROBE. Johnnu 11. Meyer and William H. Illingworth, trading as Meyer and Illingworth, of Ghuzncc Street, Wellington, building contractors, sued William Sanderson La Trc.be, of 5 Oriental Terrace, Wellington, director of the Technical School, for £A'A 10s. for building in a wnrdrobe (JCIO 10s.) and hand-<fress:ng floors (.63). ." ■ Mr. K. J. Fitzgihbon appeared for tho plaintiffs, aud'Mr. P. W. Jackson for the defendant-.' The defendant paid £6 into Court and costs on that amount. Judgment was given for - plaintiffs for the sum paid into Court, but costs were not allowed. DEBT CASES. In the following cases, judgment was entered for the plaintiffs by default:— J. Mulford y. William Longshaw, .67 14s. Id., costs £1 3s. lid.; Commercial Agency Co. (assignees), and Bannatyne and Hunter (assignors) v. Mrs. S. -Poulson, =£5 15s. Id., costs XI ss. Od.; E. Tregurtha v. Philip Palmer, lis., costs 10s.'; Fordo and Co.'-v. Bromley Hill, £2 12s. 6d., costs 10s.; The Commercial Agency, Ltd., v. A. Bailey, £7, costs £1 3j). 6d.; C. B. Trimmell and D. Jones v. George M'Gregor, ,£57 is. 10(1., costs £i Is. lid.; Levin and Co., Ltd., v. W. Greig, .£27 135., costs £2 145.; Hat Box Mercery Coy. v. W. Mill,',£s Bs., costs ,£1 3s. od.; Herbert' Alban Parke v. Palace Coy., Ltd., £:, Is. Gd., costs .£1 3s. Gd. Frederick Montague was ordered to pay William John Watson £0 18s. by March 7. W. Amerson was ordered to pay Jack Jacobus £1 Ms. 6d. by March 7. POLICE CASES. (Bsfore Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) CUT SHORT BY THE BENCH. John Milner, alias Wakefield, appeared on charges that on June 15, lflOG, at Wellington, with intent to defraud, he obtained from William Hughes Field £2 15s. by means of a false pretence; and with on June 20, 1906, at Wellington, he absconded when admitted to bail. When his Worship proposed to make a remand, tho defendant interjected that he had something to. say. "Some four years ago,"' he commenced. "I don t want to go into this," said his Worship. "I must go into this," persisted the defendant, who went on to make a statement. His Worship gave him scvoral chances of applying for bail, but the defendant talked on. "Very well," said his Worship, "remanded till February 29; bail .£20."