MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1425, 27 April 1912, Page 13

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Dr. M'Arthur, S.M.) WHICH AWARD? CONTROL BY ACT OR PRECEDENT? An industrial case of interest was heard by Dr. M'Arthur, S.M., yesterday. Charles Goldman, a Wellington upholsterer, was charged with having employed, during March, 1912, an apprentice named George Styles at the rate of 10s. per week, instead of 125., which latter amount is the wage stipulated by the latest award as the' amount to bo paid to apprentices in their second year. For this alleged breach tho Wellington Furniture Workers' Union claimed a penalty of Jil. Mr. D. Morinrty, secretary of the union, appeared in support of tho claim, and Mr. 1\ W. Jackson represented the defendant. Mr. Moriarty stated that Styles had teen indentured under tho old award, which had been made in 100G, but which had been superseded by the nward of 1911. The question beforo the Court was:— Are apprentices, who wore indentured prior to the coming into force of the new award subject to the new awards provisions? Section G9 of tho Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act, 190S, Mr. Moriarty pointed out, reads: Every award or industrial agreement shall prevail over any contract of service or apprenticeship in force on the coming into operation of the award or industrial agreement so far as there is any inconsistency between tho award or industrial agreement, and the contract shall thereafter bo construed and have effect as if tho same had been modified so far as necessary in order to conform to tho award or industrial agreement. Mr. Moriarty stressed the words: Every award shall prevail over any contract of apprenticeship in force on the coming into operation ot' the award. He contended that it was quite impossible to sot up a defence which could succeed in the face of that section of the Act. Mr. .Tackson agreed that tho provisions of Section G9 did not apply to casts in which apprentices were indentured under an award which was afterwards superseded by another award. The section, he said, only operated in cases in which an award was mado for the first time in connection with an industry. It had not been intended by tho Legislature that later awards should interfere with contracts duly made in accordanco with an early award. Ho quoted two cases _ which lie said were on all fours with this one, and in both of which Judge Sim, of the Arbitration Court, had decided on lines which were precisely the same as thoso he (Mr. Jackson) had submitted to his Worship. Mr. Jackson considered that Judge Sim's decision constituted a precedent which decided the present ease. Dr. M'Arthur: "Your idea, then, is that tho apprentices under the old award must work out their salvation as best they can?" Mr. Moriarty said that he was sorry that Ifr. Jackson had not looked a little further into tho decision, he had mentioned. The cases decided by Judge Sim, and tho" present case were not on all fours. Thero was no clause in the Furniture Workers' Award saying "existing arrangements may continue." "Regarding! the contention," he continued, "that tho provision of Section GO applies only to awards made for the first time, the intention of tho Legislature is very plain indeed. Is it reasonable to suppose that (lie Legislature, in 1908, after eighteen years of tho Act, was going to amend it for first awards only? If Parliament was asiced to amend tho Act in the morning for tho purpose of making its intention clear, it could not make it any clearer. If it was not. clear that the new award has taken tho place of the old award, apprentices who wanted to make their positions socure could sign on for three years under the old award just tho day before the new one came into operation. The position would be an absurdity. If new award is in force, how are we going to enforce the provisions of the old award? Our employers have beenxvery reasonable. Only three out of 255 cited have not agreed to do what is required by tho new award. We regret to bring tho case, but having commenced the action, we must set it through. We simply make a test case of this, and ask for a .£1 penalty." Mr. Jackson reiterated ' that ho had very high authority for his contention, inasmuch as he was supported by the decision of Judge Sim, who had given his judgment after hearing the argument of two leading members of the law profession. Dr. M'Arthur intimnted that he would give his decision on Tuesday.

NEAT ANALOGY. WAIFUKURAU AND lOWA. The Public 1 Trustee, as administrator of the estate of Jabez Rouse, deceased, proceeded against tho borough of New Plymouth to recover SG ss. 6d. The amount of tho claim was said to bo the balance payublo for tho "nicdical and funcral expenses" of tho deceased, under the Workers Compensation- Act, 1908, as follows: Maintenance (in New Plymouth Hospital), i&'l' 2s. ; funeral expenses, M 10s.; and medical attendance, ill Is. It wns stated that the borough, or tho inntranco company which indemnified it, had paid the man's half wages during a time he had been incapacitated, end also certain medical attendances, and tho question now was as to whether or not maintenance in tho hospital was included 111 medical expenses. Mr. Ha}', who represented the Public Trustee, submitted that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment, and ho quoted a decision, given in the State of lowa in America, in support of his case. Mr. M. Myers, for the defendant, replied that tho case depended upon tho construing of tho New Zealand statutes, and that the appropriate sections of the Workers' Compensation Act, the Hospitals and Charitablo Institutions Act, and the Shipping and Seamen's Act showed that tho plaintiff could not recover because tho terms "medical expenses" and "maintenance" were shown to bo two quite separate tilings, and tho Workers' C'ompeusation Act mado provision for the payment of "medical expenses" only, and not, he considered, of "maintenance." If tho Public Trust Office, instead of looking over a decision given in the State of lowa, had looked at the New Zealand statutes, the action would probably never liavo been brought. In a case of this kind, where the matter depended on the construing of the New Zealand statutes, the decision of, perhaps, an elected judge or justice in the Stale of lowa, was of just about as much value in a New Zealand Court as the decision of, say, justices of the jieace at Waipukurau would be in the State ol lowa. Decision was reserved.

DAMAGES BY A DOG. T. J. Wethcrburn sued Daniel Hickey to recover .£25 as damages done to a child of plaintiff by a dog, which plaintiff alleged belonged to defendant. Mr. E. K. Kirkcaidie appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. E. J. l'itzgibbon for the defendant. The defence was that the (log did not belong to Hickey. and .Mr. Fitzgihlmn contended that in any case the claim was excessive. JJis Worship decided that Hickey niii't be hold to bo the owner of the dog. lie assessed tho damages at JCH.

charged with tho theft of an order drawn bv W. J. Ilowell, of Pnraparaunni, on Levin nnd Co. for the sum of .£lO Ills. 3d. Tho woman pleaded guilty, and tho man not guilty. Mr. \Y. Perry appeared lor the defendants. Chief Detective liroburg stated that tho order was a :-emittancc for rental owing by Unwell to Pirihira Tuhura. Ho had posted tho money to i'irihira Tuhura at Upper Hut.t. The defendants also lived at Upper Hull, and the letter had been handed to them owing to thero being some similarity in tho names. Defendants had opened tho letter, nnd, subsequently, had cashed tho order. Jlr. Perry con tended that thero wns no case to answer regarding tho young man, as he had handed the money to his grandmother. Ilia Worship said th(it tho young man could read English, and knew well what he was doing, and was a party to tho oll'ence. Doth defendants wcro convicted and ordered to como up for sentence when called on. on tho condition that _ they nindo restitution. Until the money is repaid tho man defendant is to report to the potico every day.

OTHER CASES. Henry Marshall was charged with having refused to take the oath of nllegianeo required by tho Dofenco Act. Mr. 1'- W Jackson appeared for the defendant, -The case was adjourned till May in order to givo Marshall an. opportunity of taking the oath. ASSAULT IN RAILWAY CAR, Frederick Skinner was fined .£2 for assaulting Alfred l'ritchard, a railway official'. Tho offence, it was allogod, was committed at Kaitoko in a railway carriage, and Sub-Inspector Shechan stated that Pritcliard was struck by defendant when l'ritchard was endeavouring to stop a disturbance in which, defendant was engaged. WOMAN ADMITS THEFT. A young woman named Christina Rao was "charged with tho theft of a lady's top coat, a neck fur, and two aprons from Mrs. Tamahau. The coat was one which liad cost £6 10s., and tho whole of tho articles were now valued at The defendant admitted having taken tho coat, and having one of tho aprons in her possession. Mrs. Tamahau, who is a Maori, deposed that tho things had been taken from her residence at Kilbirnio while sho had been away at Easter time. Ills Worship said that defendant must be held responsible for all tho articles missing. He remanded her till to-day for I sentence. Bail (.£2O) was allowed. ASSAULT ALLEGED. A case was called on in which Frederick Charles Howell was charged with having assaulted Philip Herbert Powell, On tho application of Sub-Inspector Sheehan tho defendant was remanded till Monday. Mr. A. M. Salek, who appeared for the defendant, said that the case had arisen out of a common fight, and that he thought the defendant should bo admitted to bail on his own recognisance. Sub-Inspector Shechan disputed the statement that the affair had been a common fight. The assault, he alleged, had not been provoked, and Howell was very ill as a result of the occurrence. nis Worship admitted CTie defendant to bail in the sum of .£25. MONTH'S IMPRISONMENT. Robert Burke appeared for sentenco for tho theft of three brief bags, valued at XI 55., the property of Leah Helper. Defendant was sent to gaol for one month. Albert Ingram pleaded guilty to a chargo of travelling by the steamer Aorangi between Sydney and Wellington, with intent to cvatlo payment of tho faro. 110 was fined •£•! Js. (tho amount of the fare), in default one month's imprisonment. If the fino is paid the money is to bo handed to tho Union Steam Ship Company. PARENTS FINED. For failing to send children to school, John Thomas and Albert Davis wcro each fined 25., and 7s. costs. For failing to register tho births of children within tho , prescribed time, Joseph King was fined 55.; Maurice O'Connor, 55., and 7s. costs; and Lavington MelI villo, 55., and 7s. costs.