MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1470, 19 June 1912, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Mr. W. G. Riddcll, S.M.)

"BESPOKE WORK."

A QUESTION FOR TAILORS. Denis C'armody (Inspector of Awards) sued tho I nion Clothing Cmupanv for .(HO as a penally for an alleged breach of tho Wellington Tailors' Award.

.1 he proi-cciition stntod that JXivict Kellctt had ordered u suit at the Union Clothing Company's shop, and considered that he hail made it clear that he required a tai.'or-mndu suit, but had sub-MTju-sndy found tint he was receiving a factory-made suit. At one time he had declined to take the suit, aud it hud b?en put into stock, but, afterwards, he had decided to take it if certain alterations were' made to it. The making of tlio>c alterations had brought the work within the deiinition of "bespoke work," mid this class of work whs required to lie dono on the premises where the order had been given. In this cose, however, the work had been done elsewhere.

Mr. W. F. Ward, who appeared for the l-iiioii Clothi.'ig Company, remarked that it must hav2 been understood all through by tho defendant that he- was to get a fiictory-mado suit. If the alteration nindc was construed to be a "fit on," and the work was deemed to be "bespoke" work, the result would be serious to the fciiiil of clothing trade which his clients did.

.Mr. Hiddell, S.M., stated that he was not satisfied that' an order for a tailormade suit had been given, but, whatever tlio kind of suit, the words of the section of the Act were clear enough, and from thn evidence it was also clear that the work was bespoke work Section 15 said that all "bespoke" work must be done in the shop of the person by whom the order was taken. So far as the fittingon of this particular garment (the coat) went, it must lie regarded as a "fit on," no matter how slight it was. Defendant may have been quite unaware that he wai not acting within his right". However, there had been a breach of tli-a award, but a trivial one, which could 1,2 met by a ver.v light penalty, Judgment «"«s for the informant for ,£l, and defendant was ordered to pay two witnesses' expenses (165.). Jlr. Ward mentioned the matter of appealinj, and his Worship fixed the security for appeal • as the amount of the penalty, plus £$ Bs. SHARE CALLS. Te Momi Laud Company, Ltd., sued Fleming Rots, accountant, for .£B3 as calls on shares. Mr. 1 , . W. Jackson appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. E. C. Levvey for'the defendant. ' .Mr. Riddell, S.JI., who heard the casa, reserved decision. WHO OWNS THE THING? At the- Magistrate's Court, yesterday, the Hutt County Council proceeded against the Upper Hutt Town Board, claiming a , sanitary cart valued at .£35, which the plaintilfs stated belonged to them, but which had been detained by the Town Board. . The County Council claimed possession of the cart, or payment of £35, and £W damages for detention. Mr. T. C. Hislop appeared for the plaintiffs, jind Mr. P. Lcvi for the defendants. Tli3 defence was that, after the formation of the Upper Hutt Town Board, the parties had decided the ownership of certain properties which had originally belonged to the. older body (the County Council). -Tlwrc was no existing written agreement, bii't. th'c inference ' must bo

that the parties .hart settled that this cart should bo held' by the Town Board, as it- hiid' been in.that body's possession now for two, years. Dr. M'Arthur, S.M., reserved decision. UNDEFENDED CASES. In the following eases, which ■ were hennl before Dr. M'Arthnr, S.M., judgment mis enteral for the plaintiffs by default:—Hezekirih Osborne v. L. Gordon Lennox, £10, costs ,£1 3s. Od;; John Geo. Enine v. Geo. Luddmgton King, £\ IBs. 6d.. costs J3l Is.; Wellington City Council v. Chas. W. Rotlmie, .fills. 6(1., costs &s.; Frest and Frost v. Ja.-5 Williamson, •£."> is., costs £\ ss. 6d.; Wni, Franklin Browne, Walter Browne, and Harry' G.Browne v. Michael Kaull, £7 25., costs £\ 4s. Gd.; Wellington City Council v. John Wood, £4 ss. Bd., costs 75.; Stewart Timber. Glass, and Hardware Co., Ltd., v. David Duncan, .£lO .Is., costs 15=.; Wellington City Council v. Arthur Edward Guest, £i 6s. 3d., costs 55.; Stewart Timber, Glass, and Hardware Co., Ltd., v. Hubert Mead, JCI fls. 9d., costs 55.; J. E. .lenkinson v. W. Sheridan, JCt J3s. 3d., costs 55.; A. W. Hogs v. Barton Staugiiton, X'J. lGs., costs 10s.; Harry Forrester, L. M'Neill v. A. T.'. Chnmberlin, .£25 Is., costs ,£2 Us.; and Wing , Lee and Co. v. Mrs. John M'Cormick, costs ss.

JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. ,T. .1. Moore was ordered to pay T. H. Oates £1 Os. Bd. by July 2. Mary E. Faullt wa-s ordered to pay .£l7 3s. to'H. D. Baker by July 2.

POLICE LIST,

(Before Mr. AT. G. Eiddell, S.M.) FALSE PRETENCES. Frederick Koys was charged with having obtained by means of false pretences a pair of boots valued at 15s. 9d. from George and Doughty, a suit of clothes rained at £1 IDs. 6d. from Bing, Harris and Co., a pair of boots valued at 15=. and two pairs of boots valued at 30=. from Sargood, Son, and Eweu. Chief-Detective Broberg said that defendant hod obtained the goods through representing that he had'been font by certain persons known to the firms. He had disposed of some of the property to a second-hand dealer. Keys pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to oiio month's imprisonment.

ASSAULT. John Patrick Monaghan was sentenced o twenty-ona clays' imprisonment for having assaulted James Wilson.