MAGISTRATE'S COURT.
(Before Mr. W. 6 Kiddell, S.M.) THE BAKER'S SON. HOW MAY HE HELP HIS FATHER? WITHOUT PROSECUTION. At the Magistrate's Court yesterday Frederick William Meyer, baker, Brooklyn, was proceeded against by Mr. D. Carmody (Inspector of Awards) for alleged breach of the Wellington Bakers' Award. Mr. Carmody called witnesses who gave evidence to the effect that a son of Mr. Meyer, who was a carter of broad, had been employed in the bakehouse for some time every day. Mr. A. L. Herdinan, counsel for the defendant, stated that the son in question was neither a carter nor a baker, and that the award did not cover this case. The ease was a ridiculous one to bring. Mi'. Meyer lived 011 his bakehouse, and he had two young boys. A man was employed to do the carting and for part of the day this boy assisted the carter. At other times the boy assisted his father in the bakehouse. There was no justification for forcing the man to employ another baker. The award said that, a baker might deliver bread so long as he did not work more than the prescribed hours. His Worship said there was no definition of a carter in the award, but he doubted if a boy of 16J years could be called a full-fledged carter who could demand full wages. A case of this kind was not contemplated by those who framed the award. Before the plaintiff could succeed he would have to show that the employee was engaged exclusively as a carter and was also used to do work in the bakehotife. The information was dismissed. Mr. Carmody: "I ask leave to appeal, your Worship." . His Worship: "Very well." I! EXT CLAIM FAILS. Judgment was delivered in the case in which Alexander Sample claimed ,£l2' as. from Arthur Pearce, as money due for the occupation of premises in Tory Street, and for some damage to the premises. At the hearing Mr. A. Dunn anpeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. D. G. Jackson for the defendant. The question was raised at the hearing as to whether defendant should h:\ve given a week's or a month's nolice. Defendant denied all responsibility for the damages to the premises. His Worship held that the plaintiff had not proved that 'the defendant was responsible for the damages. His judgment was for plaintiff for the amount paid into Court (J!l) with ecsls-fX'l Is.) to the defendant. UNDEFENDED CASES. In the following eases judgment was entered for the plaintiffs by default:— Annie Adonis v. Michael Muleahey, ,i';l costs 10=.: Kcoullar Co.. Ltd. v. L. C. Sievers, .CI 2s. 10d„ costs 125.; 11. Price and Co., Ltd. v. George Armstrong, costs 125.; Empire Oil Co.. Ltd. v. W. 1.1. Stewart, 95., costs 'is.; Thomas Walter Scott v. Frederick Orchard, ,£fi lis, (id., costs ,C 1 lis. Gd.: .1. .1. Curtis and Co., Ltd. v. I". B. Farinar, ,£1 Os. 10d., costs 'is.: Public Trustee as extcutur of the will of Beniamin Enotli. deceased, v. William White. .C 37 6s. 3d., costs -t2 Ms.; The Stewart Timber. Glass, and Hardware Co., Ltd. v. Andrew Moves .£ll 1«. 9d., costs .El 75.; <nwo v. Owns Eauer, 16;. IcU costs £1 ff:,; J, B,
Harcourl, U". 11. :m.il A. T. TurnliuU - : v., Tist-iiinsKv-licfiiiv ! -l!- .*7costs ,C 7 I=.:;' ;j : .. ■ aiiil- t'o. v. W iiliillll Wllitc; I'CS .£'l. !l- ; . W-! John Xnrtr.n v. 8... C. .C-J2 17». 4d., costs ,tii2 ■ K-I':ioui>. Jvi,Hn iiiul .josojih Blvllii;- Oi:ii!i.n!'a v. 'j-hhiiyns At. KilIt'iy, .L't iri,., co:-!®. 1(1?,;; Saint : v. J.yii' don llonry .1(1-".;. .£1 lis Gil.; Alfred flo'ttjnm v.. IViliinin Jl» thorn, .£lO •!«. ikl.. C(i?fs ;E2' li.", : Smith and Smith, Ltd* v, Ai-'iiu.i.r -I'-snvce, 12«. iiil-., fosta ja. POLICE BUSINESS. A SJOIIN Bl'll I 13 Archibald: 3t ! l®de pjcoilcd gu:iltv tea. chnrge of having <tble.ii : s -liriff, MIT vaiuod ot ~4. ".6d,. AV]ill.innt lingo. JMenilant: wji.s coi.i-viptcd- iin.d 6vdcrod to a|)'ite'nV for s:pn:tpnci> '\vhPiv c:)jicu on. Tb.s lii'ii; is to be -rotiinioi 1 , to its owner. Tor havi'nji i>rok';n .prohibition oniew Nora Xngciit iv.as-Jineil If.Qboit CSte ,t:i. and .l<—e l'ndi>rtt-:'ind_ .t'l. I.- 1 oi* iu?nl)i',if : ty .Toliii- ArKinnon v-'as finotl JEI and Charles ifill 10=. ■
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19120607.2.8
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1460, 7 June 1912, Page 3
Word count
Tapeke kupu
697MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1460, 7 June 1912, Page 3
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Dominion. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.