Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Mr. W. CI. Eiddell, 5..M.) THE AWARD FOG. CASE FOE INTERPRETATION. RE KITCHEN WORK. Reserved judgment was delivered by .Mr. W. G. Riddell yesterday in the case Inspector of Av.arrh v. Clara Tregonning. This was a claim for £10 as penalty for an alleged breach of the Wellington Cooks' and Waiters' award, Mrs. Tregonning heiai the Droprieti'esa of a ccivate hotel

in tlio city. The, Department's caso alleged thsit during Hid mouths of April and Hay, 1912, Mrs. Trogonning employed a woman named Duddeiidgo n? cuok, and paid her only 10s., not 453. as stipulated by tho award. The defendant nil milted having employed two persons in her kitchen, one ns »i cook and the other as a kitchonnian, who did no cooking. She also admitted paying tho cook only 40.-3. per wcok, but contended that that was tho amount fixed by the award. Tho magistrate said: In tho award (under tho schedule of wages for workers in private, hotels) there ia no reference to kitchen hands, although it is different in tho schedule of wages relating to workers employed in restaurants, etc. Tho award in (luestion, however, provides for general hands in private hotels, and this, apparently, covers any class of employees not specially referral to. The language of tho award, 'when referring to such employees, is identical, and it is clear that, in the case of restaurants, tea-rooms, etc., whenever (ho word "hands" appear? under ihe heading of "kitchen," it refers to persons who act there as cooks only, lliis is clenrly also the meaning of the word in tho award when only wie hand is employed in the kitchen of a private hotel. Continuing, the magistrate' went on to say that Mr. Carmody argued that a kilehenman, in a kitchen where only cno cool; is employed, must bo regarded ns a ".second hand!" His Worship admitted that ho may bs a second hand in point ot numbers, but in a different class from tho cook, and, that being so, he did not think tho argument sound. On the other hand, his Worship argued with Mr. Myers (for tho defendant), who argued that kitchenmen arc not officially provided tor in tlie schedule relating to private hotels, and anyone employed as a kitchen hand must eonio under tho heading of "a general hand.' His worship was of the opinion that the word "hands" used in Clause 1 of the provisions relating to private hotels must be interpreted in tho same way as in tho provisions relating to restaurants, tearooms, etc., and, where tho word second" is used, it refers to a "second cook, and not to another class of worker. Judgment was for the defendant, Mrs. Tregonning.

ANOTHER AWARD CASE. The Inspector of Awards (Mr. D. Carniody) proceeded against Frederick W. Myers, baker, of Brooklyn, for an alleged breacli of the Wellington drivers' award. The. defendant was charged with employing a youth under tho nge of eighteen years as a driver during tho months of May and Juno. Mr. A. L. Hcrdman, appearing in defendant's interest's, slated, in defence, that tho youth was not, strictly speaking, a driver, being really a general hand doing a certain amount of driving at times. His Worship agreed with a point raised by Mr. Carmody, -that tlio whole question was tho employment of a lad under age, and imposed a penalty of 10s. on the defendant. HOUSE RENT OVERDUE. Charlotte Treadwell brought a claim for £1 Ss. Gd., being tho amount of rent clue to her from F. Foulks. Defendant sot up in his defence tho plea that the house was not in a fit state for human habitation. His Worship gave judgment in favour of tho plaintiff, and remarked that, as tho evidence for and against was evenly balanced, the onus of proof as to the unfitness of tho dwelling lay upon tho defendant. Mr. W. L. Rolhenberg appeared for the defendant. PLUMBER'S CLAIM. A claim for £3 13s. Cd. was made by John Nicol, plumber, against H. S. Dibby for work done. Defendant admitted having given an order for tho work to lxj done, but contended that it should bo paid for out of his wife's estate.

In giving judgment for tho plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs, his Worship held that, as the defendant had given the order for tho work to l>o done, ho was liable for tho payment. Mr. Macholl appeared in tho plaintiff's interests. UNDEFENDED CASES. In the following undefended cases, judgment was entered for the plaintiff, by default:—Karo Hearik Holler t. James Evorett, costs 55.; W. H. Corneal v. H. Beck, £3 Os., costs 10s.; Smith and Smith, Ltd., v. Mary Hcwson, £2 155., costs 10s.; tho Dunlop Company of Australasia, Ltd., v. S. F. Amer, Ml Bs. Id., costs JGI Bs. Cd.; Vacuum Oil Company v. D. Duncan, .£23 is. 2d., costs £2 Us.; Emily Nottross and Arnold A. Nattrass v. Walter Whiting, £\3 10s., costs XI 10s. Cd.; E. J. Forbes and Son, Ltd., v. Charles Kingsley Smith, M l"s. Cd., costs 10s.; Charles Pratt and Co., as assignees of A. Beaver and Co., v. T. S. Sharman, £i 125., costs 10s.; J. Vogel v. L. R. Armstrong, £2 155., costs 10s.; Gordon and Gotch Proprietary, Ltd., v. Honoria Winter, £8 18s. 6d., costs .CI 3s. Cd.; Wellington District Hotel, Club, and Restaurant Workers' Industrial Union v. John Stanley, .£1 lCs., costs 55.; samo v. Thomas Scott, ,E1 10s., costs 55.; same v. Antonio Alfano, .£1 lGs., costs 55.; H. A. do Lf-itour v. Robert Anderson, £22, costs 135.; Caselterg and Co. v. Mrs. Mary Hodgcts, 55., costs 25.; Stewart Timber, Glass, and Hardware, Ltd., v. Halbort A. Jenkins, 7s. lid., costs 55.; Wellington Operat'vo Butchers' Industrial Union of Workers v. George H. Jones, .CI Cs., coats 55.; same v. Ernest Garrett, .£1 Gs., costs 55.; AV. and G. Turubull v. Bromley Hill, 11s., costs ss. POLICE CASES. Carrio C'orbett and Michael Duffy were fined ss. each for insobriety, and two first offender!! were also dealt with. Henry Taylor, alias I'ogtop, was charged and pleaded guilty to being an idle and disorderly person. Ho was found begging alms in ltobson Street last Wednesday, and was sentenced to three months' imprisonment. Ho further pleaded guilty to stealing a lady's hat, valued at Cs. Cd., and for this was lined 20s.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19120705.2.79.2

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1484, 5 July 1912, Page 9

Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,059

MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1484, 5 July 1912, Page 9

MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1484, 5 July 1912, Page 9

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert