LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1381, 6 March 1912, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

LOWER COURT. THE FOGGY STATE OF AWARDSCARPENTER'S CASE. Apparent weakness in the terms of an award was discovered yesterday in n case in which the Inspector of Awards proceeded against W. I.nwson, builder, of Palmerston North. The. action was one alleging failure to pay tho mvnrd rate of wages !o a ciii'pentnr named — Greer; and, also, with failing to jive preference to unionists by employing Greer, who was a nonunionist. Besides tho action against the, employer, Greer was also charged with failing to claim award rates. The case was heard before Dr. M'Arthur, S.M. Mr. 1). Carmody represented the Department. Air. A. Gray appeared for tho employer, Ln'wson, and Sir. J. J. M'Grath for the employee Greer. Thn Wellington award ra'e is Is, 4}d. per hour, and the "Wellington district" unbraces all territory within a radius of in miles from tho Tβ Aro Post Office. Lawson had been engaged in building a place near Wellington, where the award rate is Is. 4Jd., and Greer had been working for him there, and had received Is. .Id., which is the country rate. Tho question arose as to whether an employer carrying on business in, say, Palmerston North, is, or is not, bound by the Wellington award when he is doing work within the radius to which that award relates. "What," asked Mr. Gray of his Worship, "do you call a man's place of business •" His Worship: "Where he has his'business premises, or his place of residence." Mr. Carmody said that a man's place of business was where ho' was actually carrying on his business; otherwise it would be competent for a builder to remove his "place of business" outside the 25 miles radius and pay whatever rate of wage's, he'liked. Dr. M'Arthur': That is where I think the Act fails. It was decided that his Worship should state a case for the consideration of the Arbitration Court, and the matter was then adjourned sine die. Mr. M'Grath remarked that he did not consider that Greer could be held to be bound by the award.

SELLING• AX ATJTO-CAR. Philip Waldeman sued \V. H. P. Barber and Herbert Lester for £32 lGs. 3d., as money paid by'plaintiff in respect to the purchase of a motor-car, £1 10s. as general damages, and ,£9 12s. special damages. Mr. A. Gray appeared for plaintiff Waldeman, Mr.-1). J. Fitzgibbon for defendant Barber, and Mr. I\ G. Bolton for defendant Lester. The case concerned an nlleged agreement to purchase a second-hand motor-car, the ultimate price of which was to be .£32 lGs. 3d. Plaintiff was said to be the purchaser, and Lester was said to bo acting as agent for; Barber, who owned the car. The evidence of one witness was heard, and the case.was then adjourned till today. ■ ■ ■

. .BY DEFAULT. In the following cases judgment was entered for the plaintiffs by default:—A. Lindsay, Ltd., v. S. Biwlge, "s., costs 125.; Jones and Co. v. Chas. Reeves, XI, costs Gs.; Albert G. M'Clymont v. Benjamin S. Gray, M 2s. 6d., costs .£1 3s. Gd.; J. G. Raine, and Co. v.. Chas. Browning Wheeler, £i 165., costs 11s.; and Bates and Lees v. G. Remington, £o 10s., costs £1 4s. 6d.

JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. In the following judgment summons caws debtors were ordered to pay by the 19th instant:—John Ridge v. Arthur Bernard Chappeil, .£1 Vs. Bd.; Kitto and Graham v. Daniel Twohill, £1 10s. 3d.; Bates and Lees v. C. H. Anderson, ,£1 16s. (Id.; and Mrs. Gordina Meade y. William Hc-intz, JCII 18s. In the case of Helen' Pettitt v. Cyril Holland, a debt of JE4I Gs., debtor was ordered to nay the amount by monthly instalments of 10s.

NOVEL LAW POINT. (Before Mr. Eiddell, S.M.) What Mr. Eiddell, S.M.,'termed a novel point—a point which he had not heard of before—arose out of a claim made by Smith and Smith, Ltd., oil and colour merchants, against the Newtown Fainting Company. The debt (£%) was for trade goods supplied. Mr. , I , ]. J. Fitzgibbon appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. J. S. Barton for .the defendants. The debt was admitted, but it was contended that, plaintiffs had no right of action, because defendants had agreed to assign their estate, and that plaintiffs, by their attendance at the meeting of creditors, at which the assignment was agreed upon, had assented to the assignment. His Worship remarked on the novelty of the point raised against the plaintiffs, but said that he doubted if it could bs upheld. The mere fact of obtaining judgment would not make plaintiffs a preferential creditor. He reserved decision.

D'URVILLE ISLAND PROPERTY. Mr. Riddell, S:M., delivered judgment in the case (heard last Thursday) in which John Laird Morrison, Native agent, Wellington, sued Edward Percy Bunny, solicitor, Wellington, for «£42 10s., as commission, at ,the rate of 5 per cent, on the-sale of a property for at D'tfrvillo Island. The defence set up was that no arrangement to reward Morrison at the rate of 5 per cent, had been made. Defendant had offered',£loo to anyone who got .£I2OO for the land. Charles Alexander Baker, who seemed to be in some way connected with Morrison, was told that he vould receive 5 per.cent, commission on the first X'iOCu and 2J per cent, on tho balance, if ho disposed of the property. Defendant was willing to pay this to whoever was' entitled to it. Morrison' contended that Bunny had wrongfully deprived him of his commission 1;v contracting , with Baker. At the hearing. Mr. H.-F. Machell appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. A. Blair for defendant. '■ In tho course of his judgment, Mr. Riddell'said:—"The fact that plaintiff and. Baker agreed to divide 5 per c<nt. commission is iiot evidence against, defendant unless plaintiff can show that defendant agreed to pay that.amount of coriimission in the event of n sale at a price. loss than JI2OO. On this point tho evidence is equally balanced, and plaintiff must, therefore, fail. Similarly, in the alternative claim, plaintiff can cnly succced if he proves the contract which he alleges existed between defendant and himself, and. secondly, that defendant was awaro that. Baker was acting as sub-ngent to plaintiff, when nesothtinf,'. for the sale of defendant's property, and when fixing tho commission to b<? paid by defendant ;\t the completion of (he sale. I nni satisfied ho has not brought forward sufficient proof 'on either point." Judgment was entered for the defendant. . POLICE CASKS. For.insobriety, Edward Waters was convicted and discharged, and for.breaking ii prohibition order ho was fined .ED.